Full text of "Speculum 1927-04: Vol 2 Iss 2"

See other formats

THE EMY OF AMERICA

\CADEMY oti
the follow:

to further contributions,
bof the Membership, Ten Dol
Membershi

Dollars. within Two Years of

romete, aud support: résearch,
ig Acapeay of Lehman Hall, Cambridge, Mast
Member wishing to withdraw. must he il hisintention in writing

1 of the easing gear otherwise he

nested that an addres

‘to. Member

desirous of ging a Member of the LARVAL
to communicate the Executive Cam
b a. Me nher and annroved DY an Officer of the ig
Membership, Five Dollars |
of Membership are
adnnum; Life Members
Yoll A Sustaining Member who-subsernbes at one Tie (ne 1 house
Harvard University University of Chicago University
|
|
|
we
or Mapieval Stops, is genvered
appear cof the Annual to, Life’ Members and to't |

SPECULUM

A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

CONTENTS

ARTICLES
AN ABORTIVE PASSAGE OF ARMS IN THE FOURTEENTH

A NEW REDACTION (J**) OF THE HISTORIA DE PRELIIS AND

THE DATE OF REDACTION J? G. L. Hamitton
SURVIVAL OF MEDIAEVAL INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS INTO

EARLY MODERN TIMES L. THORNDIKE

A NEST OF ANCIENT NOTAE
CHAUCER’S HELL: A STUDY IN MEDIAEVAL CONVENTION

NOTES

ALDHELM AT THE HANDS OF SHARON TURNER .... » &. 201
GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS AND PETRONIUS » = 203
ADVERSARIA PETRARCHIANA 206
THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA 210

211

M. D. Clubb, ed., Christ and Satan (Fr. Klaeber); J. P. Christopher, ed., S. Aureli
Augustini Hipponiensis episcopi De Catechizandis Rudibus liber unus (A. Souter);
E. Hutton, The Franciscans in England 1224-1538 (G. La Piana); A. Marigo, ed.,
Henrici Septimellensis Elegia (A. H. Gilbert); H. L. Savage, ed., St. Erkenwald
(j O. F. Emerson); C. G. Crump and E. F. Jacob, edd., The Legacy of the Middle
Ages (L. J. Paetow); E. Jérgensen, Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Medii Aeut Biblio-
thecae Regiae Hafniensis (C. H. Haskins); E. C. Armstrong, The Authorship of the
Vengement Alizandre and of the Venjance Alizandre, and B. Edwards, A Classifica-
tion of the Manuscripts of Gui de Cambrai’s Vengement Alixandre (F. P. Magoun,
Jr); R. Priebsch, The Heliand Manuscript Cotton Caligula A. VII in the British Mu-
seum: A Study (F. P. Magoun, Jr).
ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOOKS RECEIVED

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

II APRIL, 1927

PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA

i
>
ring
te
i
i
|
—
RET.
147 if
T. Spencer 177 —
f
—
4
ther
>
NUMBER 2
4
.

SPECULUM, A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

EDITORIAL BOARD

Epwarp Kennarp Ranp
Manaarne Eprtor Eprtor
Francis Peaspopy Maaovun, Jp. Joun Nicnotas Brown

It is kindly requested that all communications intended for the above editors be addressed
Lehman Hall, Cambridge, Mass.

James Hucu Ryan
Catholic University of America
Rurus Morey Ernest Hatca WILKINS
Princeton University University of Chicago

Louis JoHn PaETtow Kart Youne
University of California Yale University

WItTHERLE LAWRENCE
Columbia University

ADVISORY BOARD

Georce La PIaANa
Harvard University

Pamie ScHuyLER ALLEN

University of Chicago

Harry Moraan AYRES MattrHews MANty
Columbia University University of Chicago

Cuartes Henry BEESON Dana CarRLTON Munro
University of Chicago Princeton University

Gerorce CorrmMaN ALBert NITZE
Boston University University of Chicago

CorNeELIA CATLIN COULTER ArtHur KinGstey PortTEeR
Mount Holyoke College Harvard University

ApamMs Frep Norris Rosinson
Boston, Massachusetts Harvard University

JoHN StronG Perry TATLOcK
Harvard University

Gorpon Hatt GEROULD
Princeton University
Georce LivinestoNE HamittoN JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Cornell University University of Chicago
tes Homer HAskKIns Lynn THORNDIKE
Harvard University Columbia University
James Fretp WILLARD
University of Colorado

Specutum, A JournaL or MepIAEVAL is published quarterly by the MepraEvat
Acapemy or America. The issues appear in January, April, July, and October. The sub-
scription price is Five Dollars; single copies may be had post-free for One Dollar and Fifty
Cents. Members of the Acapemy receive SpecuLum free. In case of accidental omission in
the delivery of SpecuLum, Members are requested to communicate forthwith in writing
with the Executive Secretary. MSS submitted for publication should be forwarded to the
Managing Editor, but MSS will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped and self-
addressed envelope. For the details of editorial practice Contributors are directed to “ Notes
for Contributors” at the end of this number. The Editors cannot assume responsibility for the

loss of MSS in the mails.

Vou. II, No. 2. — Copyright, 1927, by the Mediaeval Academy of America, — Parintep tn U.S. A.
Entered as second-class matter, May 8, 1926, at the Post Office at Boston, Mass., under the Act of August 24, 1912.

r
|
to
fre
a kn
the
anc
Toy
dor
in ¢
]
dat
nece
cart
piec
| line,
the «
dout
1

eae '

SPECULUM

A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

AN ABORTIVE PASSAGE OF ARMS IN THE
FOURTEENTH CENTURY

By CHARLES JOHNSON

HERE is an entry in Rymer’s Foedera ' under the date August

22, 1384, of a license to John, lord Wells, to cross from England
to France in order to clear himself (pro declaratione honoris et nominis)
from a charge of breach of faith brought against him by a French
knight, and to take such further steps as may be necessary for the
purpose. A note at the end of the document, which is printed from
the enrolment on the French Roll of the English chancery, indicates
that it was issued on the warrant of a direct order from the king;
and the fact that the substance of Lord Wells’ petition is included
in the letters makes it almost certain that the form in which the
royal authority was conveyed to the chancellor was that of an en-
dorsement on the original petition, which was doubtless duly filed
in case any question should arise as to the issue of the letters.

But accident has preserved to us another document ? of the same
date, which shows that the royal warrant was not the only formality
necessary for the issue of this odd passport. Lord Wells sent a formal
cartel to his adversary which was made out in duplicate on a large
piece of parchment. This was afterwards cut in two along a zigzag
line, and of the resulting indentures, one was sent to its address and
the other put on the file of the chancery, so that there should be no
doubt that the conditions of the licence were duly observed.

Original edition, 1704-1735, VII, 487.

? Public Record Office, Miscellanea (Chancery). The text is given in full below as a final

note.
107

{
af
:
=
ta
<
4
q
f
;
e
|
4
2.
ig
t

108 An Abortive Passage of Arms

A copy of the cartel is appended to this article, and from it we
can gather, in spite of the damaged state of the original, a pretty full
account of the transaction which led up to it. During the peace
negotiations which took place near Calais in November, 1383, in the
course of which it was proposed on behalf of Richard II to put an
end to war by a single combat between the two young kings, some of
the knights in attendance thought of relieving the boredom of the
diplomatic business by planning a kind of friendly tournament.
Eustace de Renti, called ‘le gallois,’ seigneur of Embry near Mon-
treuil, a notable warrior who ended his career on the field of Agin-
court, sent a challenge by the hand of the French king-of-arms,
‘le roi de Corbie,’ to John, lord Wells, inviting him to a combat of
twenty a side to be fought in full armour “a outrance’ for the stake
of a gold ring each to be given by the losers to the winners. The
umpire was to be either Duke Albert of Bavaria, regent of Holland,
Wenceslas, duke of Luxemburg, son of the blind John, king of Bo-
hemia, by his second marriage, and husband of Joan, duchess of
Brabant, or Louis de Male, count of Flanders. He gave his word to
Northampton, the English herald, to do his best to obtain leave for
this combat from the king of France. Corbie and Northampton,
taking with them Lyon, the Scottish king-of-arms, presented the
challenge to Lord Wells, who gave his word to Corbie to try to get
similar leave from Richard II. A reply, fixing the names of the
English knights and confirming the arrangement was to be sent by
the same heralds before November 30, 1383. All this happened at
Thérouane near St Omer.

On St Andrew’s Day, accordingly, de Renti went to Ardres, where
he was to meet the heralds, but found no one. So he returned home,
and the next day found Chandos herald, the author of the well-
known poem about the Black Prince,' with a letter from Lord Wells,
who informed him that he had been unable to get his team together
because he had no formal letter from de Renti to show them. He
asked for a formal challenge with the list of the French combatants,
and a statement whether the fight was to be on horseback or on foot.

1 Le Prince Noir: Poéme du Héraut d’ Armes Chandos, ed. Francisque-Michel, London
and Paris, 1883.

]

it
le

| of
lik

| wh
chi

| sin
| 135
thi

hor

to :

| I
| this
tuni

Day

Brid

An Abortive Passage of Arms 109

He would then be in a position to apply for the necessary permission.
De Renti had in the meanwhile made his application, which the
French king had refused on the ground that he would have no
fighting while peace negotiations were in progress. He deferred his
reply to the Englishman’s letter in hopes that these would soon be
over. They lasted however till January 28, 1384, when a further
truce was concluded at Leulinghem near Marquise, and de Renti
wrote on the same day to Wells, acquainting him with the French
king’s decision, and adding that although it was considered that the
unpunctuality of Chandos technically justified him in dropping the
matter, he would be glad to meet Wells as arranged at the earliest
opportunity. This letter was written at Boulogne in the form of an
indenture like that which has already been described.

The document with which we are dealing is Wells’ reply to this
letter, dated from his manor of Belleau in Lincolnshire, August 13,
1384. He takes the line that de Renti’s letter implies an imputation
of breach of faith which ought to have been made a definite charge.
If de Renti is prepared to make such a charge, he is ready to defend
his honour in the usual way.

The story hardly needs any commentary, indeed it reads more
like the dealings of a pair of twentieth-century boxing champions
who are not over anxious to meet, than an episode of the age of
chivalry. An encounter of this sort in full armour was probably not
as a rule very dangerous, in spite of the fatal results of the rather
similar encounter of the thirty Englishmen and thirty Bretons in
1351, when armour was less fully developed. Nor was there any-
thing unusual in the international settlement of points of private
honour. A document of September, 1383, printed by Rymer,” alludes
to a contemporary case of the kind.

Nor was this the only occasion in which Lord Wells engaged in
this variety of international sport. He is said to have used his oppor-
tunities as ambassador to Scotland to arrange a single combat with
David Lindsay, first earl of Crawford, which took place on London
Bridge, in the presence of the king and queen, on May 6, 1390. The

' Combat de trente Bretons contre trente Anglais, en 1350. Paris, 1827. (Buchon,
Coll. XIV). 2 Foedera, VII, 407.

—

=
f
e
i ~
it
f
e
d,
0-
4
to
|
or
he
et
he
at =
ere
ne,
ell-
lls,
het
ats,
ot
|

110 An Abortive Passage of Arms

story is related by Wyntoun,' and Wells does not come out of it
with credit, as he was not only unhorsed but is said to have accused
his adversary of being fastened into his saddle, and thus obtaining
an unfair advantage. The Scottish knight is said to have leaped
from his horse to disprove the assertion and to have sprung back
into the saddle in spite of the weight of his full armour. Lord Wells
did not, like his French adversary, live to fight at Agincourt, but

died in 1407.
The cartel referred to on page 107, note 2, here follows:

MISCELLANEA (CHANCERY), BUNDLE 30, FILE 8, NO. 25

Johan segniour de Welle a Sire Dembry Wystace de Renti chevalier
dit le Galois, salutz. Honure Sires, voilliez savoir que jay receu une lettre
endente la quiele vous a moy envoiastes sicome jay entendu, de quiele
lettre la substance de la matiere issi ensuit sicome moy semble.

Wystace de Renti dit le Galois sire Dembry au segniour de Welle
salut. Honure sire voilliez savoir que jay receu voz lettres plains et
endentez lendemain de la Seynt Andreu en la ville de Monsterveul par
Chaundos le heraud darmes contenanz coment jeo vous avai requis de
certain emprise darmes pur combattre moy xx. des gentilshomes contre
xx. des vostres a combatre jesques a outreance, armez des toutz herneys
par havantage, cestassavoir launces, espees, haces, et dagues, et qi serra
desconfiz il serra quitez du paier un anel dore devant le Duc Aubert, le
Duc de Brabant, ou le Comte de Flaundres, le quiel que vous voillez eslire
des trois. Et que les heraudes darmes vous ount dit, cest assavoir le Roy
de Corby et Norhampton le heraud en la presence de Liouns Roy darmes
Descoces, que jeo voille estre attournez de mon soveraigne seignur, et
que jeo promiis en la main de Norhampton de faire ma diligence davoir
congie de mon dit soveraigne seigniour de paracomplier vers vous ma
request. Et esperez que jeo lai ensi fait. Et aussy ditez que vous promistes
en la mayn de Roi de Corby que vous me enterimeriez et acomplierrez ma
request. De cessi me escripfiez que ce que desus est dit avez fait a vostre
poair. Et pur ceo que vous navez rienz porte par escript seale de mon
seal faisant mention des dites demaundes, plusiors de vos seigniours @ qi
vous avez parle sicome vous dites cuydent que ceo ne sount que wides par-
oles. Et ensi que si jai volunte dacomplier ma request que jeo voille envier
mes lettres seales de mon seal contenant les nouns de mes compagnons
lour armes et coment nous voilloms combatre a cheval ou a pee, et que

1 Original Chronicle, IX, 9 (ed. S.T.S., VI, 359 ff).

8a’

lar
plu

por
vou

An Abortive Passage of Arms 111

toutes les chosses desus ditz vous puissez avoir pour monstrer a vostre
soveraigne seigniour. Et que altrement ne poez avoir pleins respons sur
vostre congie dacomplier ma request, et que ceo ensi fait en vous ne serra
trove ascun defaut que ma request ne seit acompli a vostre poair. Et
honurable sires voilliez savoir que veu les paroles dount je vous requise
a Terouonne qui furrount tiels, que a ma request vous voillesez combatre
ver moy vous xx. de gentils hommes de noun et darmes et que sils que
serront desconfiz, a combatre en la manere que desus est dit devant quiel
que vous voulriez eslire des trois juges desus nomez serront quites pur un
anel dore, sur lequiel batail vous me feistes respons par les susditz heraudes
que dedeins le Seint Andre dernier passes vous men feriez respouns finable
en la ville Dardre une fois pur toutes. Et ce me promesistes vous par vostre
foy en la main du Roy de Corby. Et aussi je promis en la main de Nor-
hontenne de estre au dit jur. Au quiel jur je fus la ou vous ne venistes
nenvoiastes, mais lendemeyn quand je fus revenus a Monsterveul jeo
trouvay Chando le heraut qui mapporta vos dites lettres. Et voillez savoir
que par moi et par messeigniours et amys ay mis toute la meilleur dili-
gence que jai pu de avoir cungie de mon souverain seigniour pur moy et
pur mes compaignons de enterimer et acomplir la request que jeo vous fis
a Terouenne de combatre contre vous xx. pur la maniere et condicion desus
desclarez, mais il ma este respondu que durant le fait de traicte du Roy
nostre seigniour et de son adversaire Dengleterre le Roy nostre dit seign-
iour ne donrra congie ne licence a moy ne a ascuns auters francoys de
faire tiele fait darmes enconter les Anglois, ne ne souffrira estre fait. Et
aussint fu dit que considere que vous avez fait defaillance denvoier a Ardre
au dit jour que promis aviez, au quiel je fus en ma person, je ne debvoye
plus avant poursuivre ma dite requeste. Toutefois non obstant ceo je
metteray avant tant par moy come par mes diz amis aussitost que le dict
traicte ara prins conclusion toute la paine que jeo porraie devers mon dit
soverain seigniour davoir sa licence de parvenir et acomplir envers vous ma
dite request. Et en cas que je en porrai faire, de la quiele chosse je ay tres-
grand desir, incontinent le vous ferrai savoir et au plaisir nostre seigniour
seray tous jours prest de enterimer et acomplir a mon poair ma dicte em-
prise. Sire me tenez pour excuse de ce que jay tant attendu a vous lescrip-
ver, qar ce a este parceo que jay attendu de jour en jour que le parlement
deust prendre conclusion et il nen a encore point prins come vous pourriez
savoir. Escript a Bolongne souz mon seal le xxvi. jour du mois de Janvier
lan de grace mil trois cent quatre vins et trois.

Et Sire pour ce que moi semble gen la dicte lettre sont touche matiers
plus especiales que nest en tiele request de volunte come desus est escrit
pour quoy je moy asseure a tant en vostre cor et corage que si jay fait a
vous crismousement par foy enfreinte ou autrement me voilliez monstrer

—
iit
:
.
‘
‘a
4
|
—
r
|
e
t
le
re
y
et
ir 4
1a
es
18
mn
qi
ier
ns
ue
a

112 An Abortive Passage of Arms

a point pleinement vostre entente come chevaler doit a autre en cause de
crisme par la prove de vostre corps moult leiment, en quiel cas ove laide
de dieu je mettray peine de defendre mon honur par mon corps come
chevalier. Et Sire ne merveillez mie que je touche en yceste ma dicte
lettre crisme come desus est dict, qar jay ouy dire ge sount diverses maneres
de crismes. Une est fausete pour quoy home doyt souffrir mort. Et uncore
autre est fausete pour quoy home doit estre hors mis as tous jours de office
quappent a lealte, come est nier tesmoigne, qar ne . . . tieles. . . . Pour quoy
Sire si dieu plest il ne serra prove sur moi que jay promis ma foy e ne mie
tenu devers vous ne autre en vostre noun, sicome moy semble une lettre
come jai entendu vous me envoiastes fait mencion. Et pour ce moi voilliez
certifier vostre conclusion sur ceste dicte matiere dessouz le seal des voz
armes par le porteur dicestes. Et onurable Sire ne pensez mie si dieu pleit
quil serra trove que jai faict defaute pour quoy vous devez estre excusez de
woider vostre dicte request. Escript a mon manoir de Hellowe le Samedi
devant lassumpcion de nostre dame lan de grace mil trois cens quatre vins
quart.

Memorandum quod ista indentura liberata fuit domino Cancellario in
hospicio suo per dominum de Well’ xxii. die Augusti anno supradicto et
quod idem dominus de Well’ quandam partem alterius indenture materiam
superius in omnibus contentam de verbo ad verbum continentem sigillo
suo sigillatam ibidem in presencia dicti domini Cancellarii ad eam versus
partes Calesie deferendam Rogero Wygmore armigero liberavit.

Pusuc Recorp Orrice, Lonpon.

i
a
de
14
ne
22

of
Poe
812
Her
tati
“7
AM
Gree

A NEW REDACTION (J*) OF THE HISTORIA DE
PRELIIS AND THE DATE OF REDACTION J*

By GEORGE LIVINGSTONE HAMILTON

CRITICAL study of the sources of late Latin versions and

vernacular translations of the legendary history of Alexander
the Great has been made possible only since Ausfeld ' established
the existence of no less than three redactions of the Latin translation
of the Greek romance of Pseudo-Callisthenes, known as the Historia
de preliis,? made by the Archpriest Leo, at Naples in the neighbor-
hood of 951-968. These he denominated J', J’, and J*, and of these
the last mentioned is the most important as the source of other
versions, of which the earliest is the Latin epic of Quilichinus of
Spoleto, written in 1236, which furnishes the terminem ante quem
J? was written.‘

I. THE WARS OF ALEXANDER AND THE
PROSE LIFE OF ALEXANDER

Up to the present, the only English version noted as based on J*
is the Northern Middle-English * Wars of Alexander (W.A. here-
after), made in the first half of the fifteenth century. Its source

1 Cf. A. Ausfeld, Der griech. Aleranderroman, 1907, 22; F. Pfister, Der Alexanderroman
des Archipresbyters Leo untersucht und herausgegeben (Sammlung mittellateinischer Texte, 6),
14-19; A. Hilka, Der altfranzisische Prosa-Alexanderroman nach der Berliner Bilderhandschrift
nebst dem lateinischen Original der Historia de preliis (Rezension J*), xxi-xxii.

? If the Strassburg incunabula of the work are responsible for this title (Ausfeld, op. cit.,
22, n. 4), such an authority has as much claim to acceptance as the Venice edition of 1555
of the Divina Commedia, to which we owe the distinguishing adjective by which that great
poem is now universally known.

3 Pfister, op. cit., 5-8, 15.

‘ Pfister, “Die Historia de preliis und der Alexanderroman des Quilichinus,” Miinchener
Museum, I (1912), 287; P. Lehmann, “Quilichinus von Spoleto,” Philol. Wochenschr. (1918),
812-15.

5 On the dialect, cf. Skeat, ed. cit. (E. E. T. S., Extra Ser., XLVII), 1886, xiv-xv; J. B.
Henneman, Untersuchungen iiber das mittelengl. Gedicht “Wars of Alexander” (Berlin disser-
tation) 1889, 30-36; M. Steffens, Versbau und Sprache des mittelengl. stabreimenden Gedichtes
“The Wars of Alexander” (Bonner Beitr. zu Anglistik, IX), 1901, 6-7; R. J. Menner, Purity:
A Middle English Poem (Yale Studies in English, LXV) 1920, xxii-xxiii; “Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight and the West Midland,” Mod. Phil., XVIII (1922), 526, n. 45.

® For date, cf. ed. cit., xiii, xiv, xxiii; Henneman, 36; Steffens, 5; Menner, op. cit., xxvi.

113

a
—
it
7%
q
|
if
—
4
—
|
4
a
2)
\
.
{
{

114 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

was first pointed out by W. W. Skeat! in the introduction and
notes to his edition of the English poem, where, by a happy chance,
he cited parallel passages from the Strassburg edition of 1489
of the Historia, which presents one form of the text of J*.2. Addi-
tions or changes in details in the narrative and in the forms of
certain names in the English poem, Skeat ascribed to the use by
the English author of the earlier translation of the romance, the
Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis of Julius Valerius.* But B. J. Hen-
neman, in his doctoral dissertation on the sources of the poem,‘
maintained that it had a single source, an interpolated redaction
of the Historia, the “buke,” cited as its authority, and that this
thesis is correct is shown by the use of the same redactions, as will
be set forth below, by the translator of the Northern English * Prose
Life of Alexander from the Thornton MS.® (Pr. Al. hereafter),
written also in the first half of the fifteenth century.’ But in ac-
cepting the existence of such a redaction, which may be designated
J**, it is to be noted that it was not indebted to the work of Julius
Valerius to any such extent as Skeat believed the author of the
Wars of Alexander was indebted to it, both for the forms of the

proper names and for supplementary details in certain episodes.
Skeat’s opinion was justifiable, based as it was on the text of the
edition of the Historia of which he made use, which, as the other
incunabula of J*, was printed from a carelessly written and abridged
manuscript of that redaction.* A better written manuscript ° gives

1 Ed. cit., xxi-xxii, 294-313, especially 301 and 314. Pfister, who failed to mention it as
one of the derivatives of J*, art. cit., 284, stated in another article, “Zur Entstehlung und Ge-
schichte des Fuerre de Gadres,”’ Zeitschr. f. fr. Spr. u. Lit., XLI (1913), 108, that the “Wars
of Alexander ... ganz auf der Fassung J* beruht,” which he toned down to the statement
that it “beruht . . . hauptsiichlich au J,” ed. cit., 29. 2 Cf. below and note 9.

3 Ed. cit., xxi-xxii; 294-313, passim. 4 Op. cit., supra, 53-8.

5 In the dialect of Yorkshire, according to C. Horstmann, Altengl. Legenden, N. F., 1881,

p. 456.
6 Ed. J. S. Westlake (E. E. T. Soc., CXLIII), 1918. Sir Frederick Madden, who has
alone discussed its source, Syr Gawayne (Bannatyne Club), 1839, vii, believed that it was the
Historia, as found in the Strassburg edition of 1494, which offers the text of J*, Pfister, art.
cit., 253.

7 It is the first item in the MS. (Madden, l.c.) which was written after 1422, probably
between 1430 and 1440; Horstmann, l.c.

8 Ausfeld, op. cit., 22, n. 4; Pfister, art. cit., 271-290; Hilka, ed. cit., xx.

® Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow Library, MS. 84 (T. 4, 1), saec. xv, J. Young

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 115

the forms of the names, which, on the one hand, agree with the forms
in the English translations, and on the other hand, with those in J’,
a redaction of Leo’s translation made as early as the eleventh cen-
tury,’ which in turn was rewritten by the redactor of J*, who modified
and generally developed it, by the introduction of whole episodes
and slight interpolations, and by the omission of minor details.? In
this manuscript * appear the forms ‘Clitomachus’* and ‘Satrassa-
geras,’ * the source evidently of ‘Cletomachus’ and ‘Stasageras,’ °
and of ‘Clitomarus’ and ‘Scrassageras,’’ in the verse and prose
translations respectively, for which the incunabulum has the dis-
torted form, ‘Dithomatus’ and ‘Straragonas.’ Again, ‘Sexes’ and
‘Zerses,’’ and ‘Oriathire’ and ‘Coriather,’ * are based on the com-
paratively correct forms ‘Serzes’ and ‘Oriater,’ and not on the
irrecognizable forms of the incunabula, ‘Sennes’ and ‘Macher.’ And
one finds a close kindred between the names of the monster ‘ Addon-
trucay,’ in the varying English forms ‘Anddontrucion’ and ‘ Adant-
trocay,’ ° where the printed text, through some confusion, has sub-
stituted the name of another monster, the ‘Onicenthaurus,’ while
the ‘kynge of pe Bebrikes,’ and ‘kyng of Bebrike,’° renders ‘rex

& P. H. Aitken, A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of the Hunterian Museum of the
University of Glasgow, 1902, 89-91. It is one more MS. of J°, to be added to Pfister’s long list,
art. cit., 252-4, 301. Yet G. Neilson in his ‘Huchown of the Awle Ryale’ the Alliterative Poet:
A Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Century Poems ascribed to Sir Hew of Eglinton, Glasgow,
1902, p. 19, referred to it as “the rare, if not absolutely unique manuscript version of the De
Preliis Alerandri,” and believed that the manuscript containing it and other mediaeval works
was “the identical MS. used by the poet,” conjured up by his imagination, who was respon-
sible for most of the Northern English alliterative poetry of the late fourteenth and early
fifteenth century. 1 Pfister, op. cit., 16.

2 Cf. Pfister, art. cit., 254-284; op. cit., 15. 3 Neilson, op. cit., 20.

‘ If the edition of J', published by O. Zingerle, Die Quellen zum Alexander des Rudolf von
Ems. Im Anhange: Die Historia de preliis (Germanist. Abh., IV), 1885, 164, 7 and 20; 165,
2 and 5, has the form ‘Clitomagus’; Hilka, op. cit., 83, 37; 84, 14, 21, 28, prints ‘Clitomachus’
as the correct reading of J? as copied from J'.

5 Ed. Zingerle, 165, 12, 18, 20, 21; 166, 4; 167, 24; 169, 25, ‘ Strasagoras.’

* W.A., 2252, 2278; of which the Dublin MS. gives the variant: “Clytomachus,’ 2298,
2381, ‘Strasagirs,’ 2429.

7 Pr. Al., 30, 38; 31, 12; 15, 19; $2, $1, 33-4; 32, 2-18; 34, 1, 4, 31; J', ed. cit., 165, 12,
18, 20, 21; 166, 4; 167, 24; 169, 25, ‘Strasagoras.’

5 W.A., 2361, 2512; Pr. Al., 38, 21; 36, 38: J*, ed. cit., 167, 12, ‘de Xerse’; 178, 7, ‘Oxiather.’

® W.A., 3926; Pr. Al., 71, 8; J, ed. cit., ‘Odontotirannus.’

10 W.A., 5171; cf. 5212, ‘pe Bebrik kyng’; Pr. Al., 27, 30-1; 32, 14; cf. $1, 25, “pe kynge
of Bebrikes.’

F
_
a
3
| —
4
—
—
e
e
irs
;
art. 4
ply
ung
<4

116 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

Bebricorum’ of the correct text of the Historia, and not ‘rex Ebrai-
corum’ (!) of the printed text. It is quite unnecessary to suggest
that the names in the English translation had their source in the
more correct forms found in Julius Valerius: ‘Clitomachus,’' ‘Stasag-
oras,’? ‘Xerxes,’* ‘Oxyathrus,’* ‘odontotyrannus’*® and ‘rex Be-
brycis,’ ‘rex Bebrycum,’ ‘ Bebryciorum tyranno.’ °

Skeat believed that the account of Candace’s gifts to Alexander
arose from a combination of phrases in the accounts of the Historia
and of Julius Valerius.’ But it is in fact a translation of the same
descriptive passage in J**, of which the source at this point was J?
(J' with minor additions) ,* made at least before the beginning of the
twelfth century,’ as a comparison of the English verse-translation
and the ultimate J* source shows:

I drysse here a diademe oure druits to were,’
pe gaiest gift vndire god _ of gold & of stanes,

And to 3ow selfe of be same _o serelepy hewis,

A hundreth in a hale heere _hijtild with crestis,
And twa hundret & ten be tale at pe leste,

Of rekanthes of rede gold railed of gemmes,

With pellicans & pape-ioyes _ polischt & grauen,
With cambs & with coronacles all of clene perle,
Thretti goblettis of gold _ pe grattest in be worde,
Fyue hundreth all of euyn elde of Ethyops childire,
Rynoseros, a roghe best with ragged tyndis.

An ajte to 3our empire I fra myn erd wayue,
Berrers of ane Ebyn-tree & brilles a thousand,
Foure hundreth Olifants in fere __ pis fardill to bere,
And thretti hundreth of my thede pat threuen ere & tame.
I presand jow, of panters _ full of proud mascles,
Foure hundreth fellis zit to fee at fynely ere tewid,
Of lepards & of lionesses _ pis lady him sendis."

Ed. B. Kiibler, 64, 23; 65, 4. 2 Ib., 66-7; 70, 28; 71, 4; 75, 7, 9, 12-18; 80, 6, 8.
3 Jb., 74, 7, 12. 4 Ib., 83, 1, 22. 5 Ib., 129, 18, 20.
6 Jb., 189, 5, 16; 188, 11. The last phrase is the only one cited by Skeat.
7 Ed. cit., 314. 8 Pfister, art. cit., 251-2; op. cit., 15-16; Hilka, op. cit., xxi-xxii.
® G. L. Hamilton, “Quelques notes sur l’histoire de la légende d’Alexandre le Grand en
Angleterre au moyen Age,”” Mélanges Antoine Thomas, 1927, pp. 195-202.
10 The translator has read “‘ammoni deo tuo”’ as “‘amantibus tuis”’!
“Ed. cit., 5128-5140. In the last line the translator has been guilty of unconsciously and
wrongly passing into his own narration the last phrase of the queen’s speech.

q
al
Wi
fu

dringentas.!

version has abridged it:

we send till Amon joure godd a Coron of golde and precyouse stanes,
And ten chynes of golde sett full of precious stanes. And vn-to 3ow we
sende a hundrethe Besaunte; of golde; And twa hundreth papeiayes closed
in cage; of golde; ¢ childer of Ethipes, cc apes, cccc Olyphantis, xxxiiii
vnycornes, iij panters skynne3, of parde; & lyounes ccce.”

If in the passage of the Wars of Alexander for which there is no
equivalent in J*, there is one line: were wakens be-twene werbild in
trompis, which may have been suggested by a comment on the
situation in Valerius: non enim difficile esse id aedificium armis
excidere, quod per lyrae cantus et musicam tumultuario convenisset, ®
the rest of the passage, found in both the poem and the prose
translation:

Now ere his seggis all sett & be saute nejis.. .
Oure pepill with payns _pressis to without,
Halis vp hemp cordis _ hurled out arowis;
Othire athils of armes Albastis bendis,

Quirys out quarrels quappid thurje mayles.
Sum with gunnes of pe grekis __ girdis vp stanes,
To tene be Tebis folke pat on pe touris fe;tis;
Sum braide ouir pe barrers in blasand wede,
And faire fest on a fire _ all pe foure jatis;

All pe burje at a braide was on a bale kyndild.®

1 Ed. cit., 208, 34-209, 15.

? But in a similar description, where the Latin text gives in detail an account of Alexander’s
army in its march through the deserts to India, it is the poem which abridges, vv. 3820-4, as
was noted by Skeat, in citing the passage from J*; it is the prose version which translates in
full, 68, 25-31.

5 Ed. cit., 96, 36-97, 6 4 V. 2222.

5 Ed. cit., 62, 11-18. 6 Vv. 2221-2231.

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 117

Scias quia dirigo Ammoni deo tuo unam coronam auream, ornatam ex
lapidibus pretiosis, videlicet smaragdis et margaritis, et decem catenas in-
sertas de lapidibus pretiosis. Vobis autem dirigimus aureos bipedes centum
et aves psithacos ducentos, inclusos intra decem cluvias aureas, necnon
et cantras aureas triginta, vectes ebenos mille quingentos, sed et Ethiopes
infantulos centum et simias ducentas, elephantes quadringentos quinqua-
ginta, rinocerotes octoginta, pantheras tria milia, pelles pardoleonis qua-

If the poetical version has enlarged upon its original,’ the prose

it
? 3
—
\
“4
—-
%
q
4
i
b
d =
{

118 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

And belyfe fra pay hadd gyffen assawte to pe citee, be gates ware brynt,
& mekill folke was slayne witin be citee, Sum wit arowes, sum wit stanes of
Engynes; pe Fire also by-gan for to sett in house3 wit-in pe citee, & rayse
a grete lowe,!
reveals its source in a much expanded version of a phrase in J’:
“‘civitas et parte eius ardebant et populus per murum se preceps mit-
tebat.” ?

It was J? which supplied J** with an extra phrase in the prayer
of the messengers of Darius to Alexander to spare their lives:

at illi dixerunt: “Proinde scripsit noster imperator hoc, quia nescit
vos neque magnitudinem vestram; sed ex quo nos venimus et vidimus inen-

arrabilem gloriam et magnitudinem vestram, si dimittis nos tornare gressum,
per nos erit diffamatum nomen tuum.’

expanding the statement in J*:

“‘proinde scripsit imperator noster hec quia magnitudo vestra sic sibi
penitus est ignota. Dimitte nos, quia erit sibi(!) tua gloria per nos
reuelata.”

If the prose rendering followed its text more closely:

“A, A lorde,” quop bay, “oure emperour sent thus to jou: for jour
powere & jour myghte was unknawwen vntill hym. Bot we beseke jow
late; vs gaa, and we schall mak aknawen untill hym jour grete glory, jour
ryaltee and jour noblaye,”

1 Ed. cit., 30, 20-24.

2 Ed. cit., 83, 17-18. J*® has only: “Inchoato itaque prelio civitatis ex una parte diris
ignibus utebatur [t.e. Alexander]. Populus autem per murum precipitans, etc.,”” Historia
Alexandri Magni, s.\., 26 novembri 1490, fol. c iii, verso, col. 2. This edition (Hain, Reper-
torium bibliographicum, 781; Pellechet, Catalogue général des incunables des Bibliothéques pub-
liques de France, 448; R. Proctor, An Index to the Early Printed Books in the British Museum,
7389) was one of four books printed by an unknown printer in the south-east of France, or
in Savoy, R. Proctor, “Incunabula at Grenoble,” Library, N. S., I (1901), 218, and is to be
added to those editions which contain J*, noted by Pfister, art. cit., 253. But Hilka, ed. cit.,
xx, is wrong when he states that the Utrecht prints present the text of J*; as a collation of the
readings from the edition of 1473, given by K. Kinzel in his edition of Lamprechts Alexander,
1884, shows beyond a doubt that that edition gives the text of J?. The copy of the 1490
edition which I have used is in the Zarncke Collection of the Cornell University Library.

3 Ed. cit., 73, 20-25.

4 Ed. cit., fol. b v, verso, col. 1.

5 Ed. cit.. 28, 1-5.

¢
SE
al
vou
| tra
mec

wor

oure

hav

CX)

earli

origi

(d. 1

versit

ville’

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis
the poem keeps the conditional clause found in J:
“8a,” quod pai, “comly kyng” & on knes fallis,

“pase ditis endited to 3owe _ sir Darius him-seluyn,

For he knew nojt of jour knijthede __ ne of your kid strenth;
Ne wist nojt of your worthenes & wrate all pe baldire.

Bot wald je grant vsto gaa & gefe vs [jJour' lefe,

pen suld we bremely our bill to pe berne shewe.” ?

Again in the reply of Alexander to a flatterer, there is found a
curious combination in the English translations: *

“me ware leuer,” quop he, “be a wyse manes disciple ban for to hafe
pe lonyngeg of Achille3.”

“Nay, I wald more worth,” quod be [wee], wyse man disc[iJple,
pan pe honour pat Acheles _ajt all his time,”

of the phrase in J*:* “Magister, cupio sapientis esse discipulus
magis quam vilis laudes habere,” and in J*: “antea optaveram esse
discipulus Homert quam habere laudem quam habuit.”’

It may be that J* adopted from J? the account of Alexander
sending a part of his army to Ascalon while he was founding Alex-
andria, as well as the mention of his conquest of Sidon:

precepit ut pars exercitus sui iret ad Scalonam et expectaret eum
ibi. . . Deinde subiugata Sidone,®

1 The reading of the Dublin MS., v. 1826:
Bot je wald graunt vs to go & gyfe vs owr lyfez,
vouches for the correct reading.

2 Vv. 1822-7. It may be worth while citing the translation of the same passage in the
translation made fifty years later (1450) by Stephen Scrope of the Dits moraulz of Guillau-
mede Tignonville: ‘““Oure kyng Dary knowyth the not wele, but we wote and know thy grete
worshyppis and bounteis that be in the, so we byseche the that yt please unto the to save
oure lyfe. And we shalle telle plainely to kyng Dary and bere wytnes of that the whiche we
have sene in the”; H. Knust, Mittheilungen aus dem Eskurial (Bibl. d. Stuttgart, Litt. Ver.,
CXLI, 1879), 433, 435. It is even further removed from the Greek original than are the two
earlier versions, since the French work was a translation of a Latin rendering of a Spanish
original translated from an extended version of the Arabic Life of Alexander of MubaSsir
(d. 1053-4), which was based on an Arabic rendering, with theological, of probably a Syriac
version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes. It is omitted in the Earl of River’s translation of Tignon-
ville’s work, The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers: A Facsimile Reprint of the first Book
printed in England by William Cazton in 1477, ed. W. Blades, 1877, foll. 46 v.—48 v.

5 Pr. Al., 28, 25-6; W. A., 2124-5. 4 Cf. Skeat’s note to v. 2124.

5 Ed. cit., 8%, 12-13. 6 Ed. cit., 61, 2-4; 63, 5-6.

- . fe
a
119 —
i
if
—
in
it
@
a
=
a
t,
ne
are.

120 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

the source of the passages in the English translation: *
and sent pe maste substance of his Oste to be Cite of Askalon, and bad
pam habide hym thare . . . and fra thethyn he went to Sydon & wan it;
pe mast parti of his princes & of his proud ost
Hastis pam in-to Ascoiloym & bar pai him bydis. ..
And sone he sesyd all pat syde & Sydoyne he takis.

But since these passages were found in J':* precepit ut partes ezer-
citus sui irent ad Scalonam et expectarent eum ibi . . . Deinde subiugata,
the source of J*, they are probably to be found in manuscripts
which present the complete text of that redaction, even if they are
omitted in the abridged incunabula mentioned above. Such certainly
was the case with the list of the countries, conquered by Alexander,’
which is omitted in the incunabula,‘ but translated in the Wars of
Alexander.®

Two interpolations, only found in the English poem, may well
have been found in J**. The first of these, in the account of the ada-
mant of which one of the steps of Darius’s throne was made:

And growis out of pe grete see in graynes and in cragis.
If any Naue to it neje _ pat naylid is with iryn,
pen cleuys it ay to pe clife carryg & othyre,®

would seem to have had its source’ in the tenth-century Latin

1 Pr, Al., 15, 16-17; 35-6; W. A., 1115-16; 1142.
2 Ed. cit., 148, 20-2. If, in this edition of J', the phrase “‘baculo, quem tenebat in manu”
is omitted in the account of the slaying of Lisias by Alexander, 143, 19, and so is considered
an addition in J* by Hilka, ed. cit., 42, 25, this is an error, because one finds “‘quem tenebat”
in J*, ed. cit., fol. a vii verso, col. 1, of which the complete text was the source of the English
translations: “‘a wardrere pat he hade in his hande”; ‘‘a wardrere he walt in his handis”;
Pr. Al., 10, 37; W. A., 1838.

3 It is printed on the authority of a number of manuscripts by Pfister, art. cit., 269-70,
and from the Glasgow MS. by Neilson, op. cit., 21.

4 Ed. cit., k iiii, verso, col. 1.

5 Vv. 5656-5677. It is omitted, no doubt, for brevity’s sake, in Pr. Al., 109, after 5-7.

6 Vv. 3375-7.

7 Because a similar statement is found in The Buke of John Maundeuille, ed. G. F. Warner,
Roxburghe Club, 1889, 82, as noted by Skeat, Neilson characteristically brings this fact
forward as a proof that the author of the W. A. took this item from the Latin version of the
‘buke,’ found in the Glasgow manuscript containing the Historia, op. cit., 22, whereas, in fact,
the source of the passage in Maundeville, is the passage of the Commonitorium Palladii, a8
I shall have occasion to show in an article, ““The Alexander Legend in Maundeville.”

. J

che

Wo
His

tiby

sam

latei

Ort.

and

achr,,

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 121

translation of the Commonitorium Palladii,’ a Greek tractate de-
scribing India, written in the first half of the fifth century, a.p.,?
which, in one manuscript, appears as part of the Greek Pseudo-
Callisthenes, and is used elsewhere in another manuscript.* Here
is found the statement:

sunt autem mille aliae insulae in rubro mari, quae sunt subditae ad
istam praedictam insulam [i.e. Taprobana], in quibus sunt illi lapides,
quos megnetes nominamus, qui trahunt ad se ferrum. Etiam si qualiscum-
que navis advenerit, quae habuerit de ferro clavum, statim apprehendent
eam et non admittunt.‘

In the other passage the authority of the ‘buke’ and of Isidore are
cited as authorities in the account of the palace of Porus:

Of Euor & of Olifants was ordand pe jatis,

With barrers of ane Ebyn-tree bonden with cheynes.

pe Ebyn, as pe buke sais _ brin will neuir,

And growis in pe Iles of ynde_ as Isodry tellis,
for which one finds the unglossed description in the prose version:

and pe 3ates of be Palace ware of Euour wonder whitt & pe bande; of

pam, & pe legges of Ebene.
But the clause ‘of Euour whitt’ in the later translation shows that
J* substituted the expression ‘de ebore albo’ for the adjective
‘eburnee’ in the sentence in J*: Parietes in portis et porte ipsius
palatit erant eburnee laquearia ebena.® This expression was taken
not from J’, but from the Epistula Alexandri ad Aristotelem, a trans-

1 That it was one of several tractates relating to Alexander, translated, or revised at
Naples, when Leo made his translation, has been pointed out by F. Pfister, ““Bemerkungen
zur Sprache des Archpresbyters Leo und der vulgirlateinischen Alexandertraktate,” Wo-
chenschrift f. class. Philol., 1915, 827-336; “Die Brahmanen in der Alexandersage,”’ Philol.
Wochenschr. 1921, 569-71, 832-8.

2 On its probably correct attribution to Palladius (ca. 363-ca. 430), the author of the
Historia Lausiaca, P. R. Coleman Norton,” “The Authorship of the Epistola de Indicis gen-
tibus et de Bragmanibus,”’ Class. Philol., XXI (1926), 154-60, who has failed to note that the
same attribution is accepted by Pfister, Kleine Texte zum Alexanderroman (Sammlung vulgir-
lateinischer Texte, Nr. 4), 1910, viii; art. cit., Philol. Wochenschr., 1921, 571-2.

Ed. C. Miiller, 1877, xiv, 102; Ausfeld, op. cit., 9, 89, n. 17: Pfister, Kleine Texte, viii;
art. cit., Philol. Wochenschr., 1921, 572-4. It appears as a whole as Ps. Call., iii, 7-11, in MS. A,
and is used elsewhere in MS. C.

‘ Kleine Texte, 2, 15-20. Notwithstanding the variants in the different redactions pub-
lished of the Latin version, they all go back to one translation; Pfister, art. cit., Philol. Wochen-
achr., 1921, 571-2. 5 W. A., 3680-3; Pr. Al., 64, 29-30.

'Ed. cit., fol. f v, recto, col. 2.

i"
|
iid
i
fit
‘ee
a, i} ,
re
|
y
3
4
ell
la-
‘in
—
red 4
at”
lish
is”; 4
-70, |.
:
1.
the
fact,
i, a8 =
2

122 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

lation of a lost Greek original, made in the tenth century,' where
one finds a fuller account:

regias vero habebant de ebore albo, habebant et lacunaria, id est sub-
ficta, de ligno quod nominatur ebenum, et est lignum fuscum, quod nas-
citur in India et Ethiopia.?

The two renderings of the resulting phrase in J**, show once more
the procedure of the author of the latter in combining two texts.
In the first clause he retained the syntax of J* and the vocabulary
of the Epistula: ‘regiae * vero erant de ebore albo’*; but by preserving
the syntax of the Epistula, and preferring ‘laquearia’ of J* to its
synonym ‘lacunaria‘ ‘ceilings,’ he led the translators to consider
the ‘laquearia’ as a part of the gates, and to translate the word
accordingly, if with a meaning entirely different from that given
in the Latin text. The prose translation, ‘a bande of bam & pe legges
of Ebene,’ is confirmed by the translation of a related word in a
contemporaneous Latin-English glossary: ‘hoc laquear, post-band.’§
The translator has made two words of the compound word, which
meant ‘hinge.’ * Has this meaning of the word been combined with
another well-authorised meaning in the verse translation?

With barrers of ane Ebyn-tree bonden with cheynes

1 That there were not two translations as was believed by Pfister, Kleine Texte, ix: “Die
parataktischen Darstellungen in der volkstiimlichen Erzihlung,” Wochenschr. f. class. Philol.,
1911, 812-3, but a single translation and a renouvellement of it, at Naples, as was the case
with the Commonitorium, was pointed out by the same scholar in his articles: “‘ Was heisst
‘cliba, clibula’?”’ ibid., 1913, 1184; “‘Bemerkungen zur Epistola Alexandri ad Aristotelem,”
ibid., 1913, 1155-9; art. cit., ibid., 1915, $29, and by F. Miiller, “De Epistula Alexandri ad
Aristotelem observatiunculae,”” Mnemosyne, LITI (1925), 268-72.

2 Kleine Texte, 23, 2-6. The first clause: “r. v. habebat d. e. a.” is found in the Epistula,
forming part of the Historia, in the version of the MS. Bamberg E. IIT. 14, ed. Zingerle, 205,
n. 18.

3 For the meaning of regia, as both “door” and “‘gate”’ of a sacred edifice, D. C., s. 0;
cf. The Corpus Glossary, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 1921, 152, 76, regiae, postes majores (punctua-
tion corrected).

* Cf. Isidore, Etym., ed. W. M. Lindsay, xv, 86; xix, 12, 1: “ Laquearia sunt quae cam-
eram subtegunt, quae et lacunaria dicuntur.” Was “subficta” in the citation in the Epistula,
suggested by “‘subtegunt”’ ?

5 T. Wright, Anglo-Sazon and Old-English Vocabularies, ed. R. P. Wiilker, 1884, 667, 19
and 24; cf. 731, 27; 778, 8; 591, 41.

® Catholicon Anglicum, ed. S. J. Herrtage (E. E. T. S., LXXV, 1881), xxvii, 19 and n.4,
where the passage in Pr. A. is cited from the MS. But the lemma is “vertebra,” while the
lemmas for ‘a Bande of a howse’ are lacunar, lacunarium, laquear, laquearium,” that is to say,
. ceiling.’ ”

in,

Floy

of tl

Asen

| Bibl.

Pari

REF

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 123
Certainly ‘laquearibus’ in Vergil’s phrase: ‘dependent lychni laqueart-

bus aureis,’' meant ‘chains’; for Lucan in his imitation writes:
Agressi tendunt auratis vincula lychnis,?

and this interpretation was continued in Latin glosses: ‘laquearea,
catenae aurea,’ from one of which the English translator may have
derived his information.*

It is evident that either the redactor of J** recognised, himself,
the sources of one of the clauses in Isidore’s account of the same
tree: ‘ebenus in India et Aethiopia nascitur,’* or, more probably,
found it already indicated in a scribal addition in the manuscript
of the Epistula of which he made use. But Isidore makes no men-
tion of the indestructibility of ebony by fire, and such a reference
in J** would anticipate by half a century the earliest allusion to
such a characteristic in the older version of Floire et Blanceflor * and
in the Percival of Chrétien de Troies.6 In the first of these, where
an imaginary tree is described, we are told:

Cius arbres a a nom benus
Ja un seul point n’en ardra fus;7

in the latter, that in the house of the Fisher-King a table was brought

in, and then two servants came,

Qui aporterent deus eschaces
Dont li fuz a deus bones graces,
Don les eschaces fetes furent;
Que les pieces toz jorz an durent
Dont furent eles d’ebenus

De celui fust ne dot ja nus

Que il porrisse ne qu’il arde;

De ces deus choses n’a il garde.®

1 Aen. i, 726. 2 Phars., i, 521.

* Loewe-Goetz, Corpus gloss. lat., IV, 21; V, 305, 21, 505, 35.

‘ E. g. Etymol., ed. cit., xvii, 7, 36.

5 It must have been written before 1170, the approximate date of the Middle-High German
Floyrusdichtung; F. Vogt, Geschichte d. mittelhochdeutschen Literatur, 1 (1922), 113, the earliest
of the translations of that version; P. Leendertz, Floris ende Blancefloer van Diederic van

* W. Forster, Kristian von Troyes: Wérterbuch zu seinen sdmtlichen Werken (Romanische
Bibl., XXI) 1914, 39*, 152*, dates it 1174-1190. 7 Ed. E. du Méril, 1856, vv. 603-4.

* Crestien’s von Troyes Contes del Graal (Percevaus li galois): Abdruck der Handschrift
Paris jrangais 794, ed. G. Baist, 1909, vv. 3289-35, with correction suggested by Férster,

i
iif q
ii
—
—
—
—
a
a
4
aq
ula,
19
Asenede (Bibl. v. middelnederlandsche Letterkunde 15), xxvii-iii. - 4
4
the
say,
4

124 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

But the mention of two, instead of one of the characteristics of
ebony, in Percival, points to the probable source of the mention of
one of these in J**, as vouched for by the Wars of Alexander. In
the account of Alexander’s visit in disguise to Queen Candace in
the Greek text of Pseudo-Callisthenes, he is led into a room by
his hostess: é& abrous 5& rpixdors
kal dxavora brd mupds.! This passage was abridged and incorrectly
translated in the original Latin translation of Leo: widi et ibi triclin-
tum ex lignis asiptis, qui non incenduntur ab igne.*

Not knowing the meaning of the adjective, ‘aéonrra’ “incorrupt-
ible,’ the translator transliterated it as a noun, giving it the meaning
of a kind of wood, and the passage, rewritten in the third person to
conform to the syntactical construction of J', was one of the addi-
tions to this original,’ made by the redactor of J*: deinde ingressa
est cum eo in aliud cubiculum constructum ex lignis asiptis que nullo-
modo accenduntur abigne.* From the original text of Leo,® the author
of the Strassburg version of Lamprecht’s Alexander, written ca. 1170;
took the name ‘aspindei’ of the wood, and its peculiar character-
istic,’ while J?® furnished the name ‘aspido’ and the character-

op. cit., 124*, of ‘eschaces,’ for ‘eschames’; cf. ed. Potvin, 444-52. It is to be noted that
eschaces < skat-ia ‘stilts,’ has a doublet, ‘escace < Persian shah, ‘chessman,’ of which Marco
Polo relates in his account of Champa: “JI ont maint boschés dou leigne que est appellés bonus,
ge est mout noir, dou quel se font les escaces et les calamans,” ed. G. Pauthier, 1865, p. 189. The
passage of Percival was used by the early thirteenth-century romance, Floriant et Florete, ed.
F. Michel (Roxburghe Club, 1873), vv. 798-801.

1 iii, 22; ed. C. Miiller, 1865, 182. The probably correct reading, \i@wv, is found in
MS. B; cf. Ausfeld, op. cit., 99, note 28, 8, as the éucavros was a species of asbestos; A. Nies,
Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie d. class. Altertumsw., I (1894), 1830: and add Dioscorides,
Physicus, ed. Sprengel, 5, 156. 2 Ed. Pfister, 116, 8-9, and cf. p. 23.

3 The sentence was omitted in J’, ed. cit., 246, 1, and therefore in J°, ed. cit., fol. i v, col.%
and its Italian translation, A. Hilka, “Die Berliner Bruchstiicke der dltesten italienischea
Historia de preliis,” Zeitschr. f. rom. Philol., XLI (1922) 250, 90. For its source, ibid., 235.
It is in a manuscript written in the first part of the fourteenth century, ibid., 234. The ac
count of the episode in the Seelentrost, based on J‘, Pfister, op. cit., 31, is too abridged to
admit detailed descriptions. 4 Ed. cit., 215, 20-24.

5 That is to say, from a manuscript based on the same archetype as MS. Bamberg E. Ill.
14, Pfister, op. cit., 29.

® Pfister, op. cit., 29, so dates it, but Vogt, op. cit., I, 77, dates it earlier; “mehrere Jabr-
zehnte,” after Lamprecht’s original work, written ca. 1130; ib., 74.

7 Ed. K. Kinzel, 1884, vv. 6089-99. For its source, Pfister, art. cit., 384, n. 1; op. cit., 38.

® A. Gaspary, Gesch. d. italienisch. Literatur, 1 (1885), 381-2; T. Casini, Gesch. d. itale
enisch. Litteratur, in Gréber’s Grundriss, II, iii (1901), 84; D. Carraroli, La leggenda di Alessaw-

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 125

istic, to the fourteenth-century Italian I nobili fatti di Alessandro
Magno,’ and the name, ‘asiptis,’ to the Swedish Konung Alexander*
(i875-86), while the thirteenth-century ‘ French prose translation,
omitted the name of the material, but gave its characteristic.®
Wolfram von Eschenbach, in the early years of the thirteenth
century basing his Parzival upon the Percival of Chrétien, identified ii
the ‘aspindei’ of the Strassburg Alexander with the ‘ebenus’ of the ea
French poem, and described his hero’s shield:

des schilt was holz, hiez aspindé:
das filet noch enbrinnet.®

But he had already used the same source in his strange account of
the wound of King Anfortas’ — Chrétien’s Fisher-King — in telling
how the strength of the poison in the king’s wound was such:

|
aspindé des holz enbrinne niht:
s6 dises glases dréf iht spranc,
fiuwers lohen d& swanc.
aspindé d& von verbran.
was wunders diz geliippe kan.®

dro Magno, 1892, 260. Grion in his edition, 1872, clxxi, wrongly dates it in the last thirty
years of the thirteenth century, a date which Pfister, unfortunately, accepts, op. cit., 38. 4

1 Ed. cit., $84.

2 Ed. G. E. Klemming (Stockholm, 1862), v. 8224. a

3 Ib., p. $361. For J? as its source, Pfister, op. cit., 38.

‘ E. Meyer, Alezandre le Grand dans la littérature du moyen dge, TI (1886), 307; Hilka, }
ed. cit., 28-30.

5 Ed. cit., 215, 18-16, “Dont entrerent i] en une autre cambre qui estoit faite d’une maniere
de fust qui ne puet estre espris de fu.”

Ed. E. Lachmann, 741, 2-3. The Austrian poet, Albrecht, in his continuation of Wol-
fram’s work, Der jiingere Titurel, written before 1272 (F. Vogt und M. Koch, Gesch. d. deutsch.
Literatur von den diltesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart, 2d ed., I, 1907, 188) supplies his heroes
with a shield and bow of ‘aspindaye’; ‘aspinde,’ ed. K. A. Hahn, 1842, 2966: 3879-80, 3491,
whose two wonderful characteristics he notes, and adds that Noah made his still existing ark
of it, 285, 2; 1842, 2-3. It is to be noted that Albrecht made use of redaction J* of the Historia,
as it is apparent from his allusion to the story of the basilisk, ed. cit., 3983, which C. Borchling,
Der jiingere Titurel und sein Verhdltnis zu Wolfram von Eschenbach (Gottingen dissertation),
1897, 77-9, in his discussion of the indebtedness to the Historia, believed was an independent
addition, judging from Zingerle’s edition of J, whereas it is found in the cited edition, fol. ii,
verso-i ii, recto, and printed in a critical text by Pfister, art. cit., 264-5.

” Cf. Vogt, op. cit., I, 270-1.
® Ed. cit., 490, 26-30.

4
tik >
of
n
Ny
ly
“a
n-
@
ng
to
a
380
lo- 4
10r
6 >
0,
er-
er-
—
mus,
The 4
, ed.
ides,
ol.
schea
, 235.
ac
ed to
mile
Jahr-
lessan
a

126 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

Now, a correct translation of the Greek passage is found in the
eighth-century ' Syriac translation, from a seventh-century ? Persian
version,’ of what would seem to be an enlarged text of the Greek
Pseudo-Callisthenes:

the beams of the roof were of the wood which they call ébmién; no
wood-worm attacks it, neither does it burn in fire,‘

while in the Ethiopic version, found in one manuscript, written in
the nineteenth but made between the fourteenth and sixteenth
century,° translated from an Arabic version,’ of which this part was
based on an Arabic translation of a redaction of the Syriac version *
made before 840,° the phrase is rendered:

the floor of the chamber was of red wood, which fire can not burn, nor
rain make to rot, nor the wood-worm bore it.”

1 Néldeke, “Beitriige z. Gesch. d. Alexanderroman,” Denkschr. d. Kais. Ak. d. de Wissen-
schaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Cl., XXVIII (1890), No. 5, p. 17.

2 Jb., 18, 17; S. Fraenkel, Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellschaft, XLV (1891), 318-20.

3 Néldeke, op. cit., 11-17; Fraenkel, art. cit., 312-21. For the use of a Persian version
of the romance in a pseudo-historical Arabic work, E. G. Browne, “Some Account of the
Arabic Work entitled Nihdyatu’l-irab-ft akhbdri’ Furs wa’l-‘ Arab,” Journ. of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1900, 212-215.

4 E. A. W. Budge, The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the
Pseudo-Callisthenes, 1889, 123; cf. V. Ryssel, “ Die syrische Ubersetzung des Pseudo-Callis-
thenes,” Herrig’s Archiv, XC (1893), 383: “und das Holzgetiifel der Decke war von dem
Holze, welches obmion heisst, und in dieses Holz kommt der Holzwurm nicht hinein, auch
brennt es nicht im Feuer.”

5 B. M. MS., Aeth. CCCLXXXIX, Budge, The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great,
Being a Series of Translations of the Ethiopic Histories of Alerander by the Pseudo-Callisthenes
and other writers, 1896, ii. The manuscript, in the National Bibliothek of Vienna, MS. Aeth.
XIX, Miller, “Die athiopischen Handschriften der k. k. Hof-Bibliothek in Wien, “ Zeitschr.
d. deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, XIX (1862), 554, which B. Meissner,”’ Mubasiirs
Akbar el-Iskender,” ibid., XLIX (1895), 583, n. 2, thought was another manuscript, con-
tains the work which Budge published under the title of “A Christian Romance,” in The Life
and Exploits of Alexander the Great, 259-353, as was pointed out by K. F. Weymann, Die
aethiopische und arabische Ubersetzung des Pseudocallisthenes (Heidelberg diss.), 1901, vi.

6 Budge, The Life, etc., xxiv; Néldeke, op. cit., 17.

* Budge, op. cit., Ixxxix; K. F. Weymann, Die aethiopische und arabische U bersetzung det
Pseudocallisthenes (Heidelberg diss.), 1901, 63.

7 Guidi, Wien. Zeitschr.f.d. Kunde d. Morgenland., XI (1901), 279 ff. (a review of Budge’s
edition of the Ethiopic version); Weymann, op. cit., 44.

8 Weymann, op. cit., 19-50, especially 45-6, and for this episode, 42.

Ibid., 81.

10 Fd. cit., 200. For another instance of the Ethiopic text representing closely the Greek
text in the same episode, W. Wilmanns, “ Alexander und Candace,” Zs. f. deutsch. Altertum,
XLIX (1901), 234, and cf. 237.

{
.
0
T
01
pé
| eb
| mé
‘el
of
mac
cler;
1
ander
229; |
M. G
1887,
noch
3
| is a di
in his.
mentic
mant,”’
Lore S

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 127

It is evident that a similar correct translation of the whole phrase
existed in Latin, rather in the form of a correction in some manu-
script of one of the redactions of Leo’s work, than in a separate
translation of the complete work.' The translator, or some later
scribe, identified ‘asiptis’ with ‘ebenus,’ as Wolfram von Eschenbach
was to do in his turn,” and used the latter word as a gloss, or as
a substitute for the former. A scribe of J', or of J*, used the part
of the phrase in regard to the fire-proof quality of ebony, as a gloss,
on the mention of that wood in the description of Porus’s palace.
The redactor of J**, having made use of this gloss in that passage,
omitted a similar gloss he found in the description of Candace’s
palace in J? and copied the briefer account which he found in J*:

deinde ingressa est cum eo in aliud cubiculum constructum ex lignis
ebenis bussinis et cypressinis. et illud triclinium erat positum per artem
magicam.*

To judge from the two English translations, he even omitted
‘ebenis’ thinking that he had already done his duty by that kind

of wood :
And pan scho laches him be-lyfe & ledis him forthire,
In-to a clochere with a kay __ pe clennest of be werde,
Was sammed all of sipris & seder-tables.
pis selere was be sorsry _ selcuthely foundid,
Made for a mervall to meeue with engine;

And oute of bis chambir scho ledd hym in-till a wit-drawyng chambir
made of cypresse. Pis chambir was sett apon foure wheles by crafte of
clergy.‘

1 However, K. Kinzel, in discussing the varying Occidental forms of the story of Alex-
ander’s descent into the sea, —“ Zur Alexandersage,” Zeitschr. f. deutsch. Philol., XV (1883),
229; for additional versions, Hilka, op. cit., xxxix-xli; and cf. Budge, Life and Exploits, 282;
M. Gaster, “An old Hebrew Romance of Alexander,” Journ. of the Royal Asiatic Society,
1887, 495, 533, — came to the conclusion: “* Wir miissen annehmen, dass es im 11. Jahrhundert
noch eine andere auf Kallisthenes zuriickgehende Darstellung der Alexandersage gab.”

2 Cf. p. 125, above.

* Ed. cit., fol. lv, verso, col. 1. It is to be noted that in J* the room made of ‘asiptis’
isa different room from the one made of three woods.

‘ W. A., 5288-92; Pr. Al., 100, 6-8. It might be suggested that Jacques de Vitry, who
in his Historia orientalis, completed after 1220, made use of the other part of the phrase in
mentioning the cause of the age of certain trees: “Unde cedrum et ebenum imputribiles aesti-
mant,” ed. cit. 174. T. F. Crane, The Exempla... of Jacques de Vitry (Publ. of the Folk-
Lore Soc., XX VI), 1890, xxxvi; Ph. Funk, Jacob von Vitry, Leben und Werke (Beitr. z. Kultur-

k
h —
fe
—
—
or
ion
4
—
lem 4
mes
th,
Life
—
Age
—
q
—
a

128 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

The Wars of Alexander is the sole authority for three passages,
which without question was in its Latin original J**. The first of
these, omitted for brevity’s sake in the prose version, is in the account
of the hero’s march with his army from Cilicia to Phrygia, in the
course of which he ascends Mount Taurus and comes to the city

of Persepolis:

Pare saze he selcuthis sere _as pe buke sais,

pe muses of musike & pe merke _ how it was made first.'
The source for the greater part of this was doubtless found in J’,
if it omitted in the printed editions, in the phrase taken from J’:
“in qua sunt novem musae.”? It may be that the last clause, “¢
merke how it was made first,” many have been an independent inven-
tion of the poet to fill in the verse, or it may have been suggested
by the account in Julius Valerius of the “civitatem. . . . ibidem Musae
etiam Pierides consecratae videbatur unaque omnigenum figementa
viventium Orphei musiciam demirantia.” *

The two other passages are found at the beginning of the poem,
for which there is no equivalent in the prose version, owing to the
loss of a number of pages in the manuscript. The first is in the
account of the natural disturbances, which took place at Alexander's

birth. The verses:

pen rekils it vnruydly & raynes doune stanys,
Fell fra be fyrmament as a hand lyftyng,
And some as hoge as pi hede__fra pe heuyn fallis,*

was evidently based on a source in which the phrase in J*, tunc in
Italia petre de nubibus ceciderunt,’ was amplified by the equivalent
phrase of J’, Tunc etiam saxa de nubibus cum grandine mizta ceci-

derunt et terram veris lapidibus verberaverunt.®

gesch. d. Mittelalters, hrsg. von W. Goetz, 3), 180, 156-7, made use of J’; cf. ed. Douai,
1597, 175, 177-8, 198-212; ed. Zingerle, 239-41, 204; 217, 206-7, 214-15, 220-31, 234-5;
Pfister, op. cit., 38. But the ultimate source was, no doubt, Pliny, N. H., xvi, 212: Cariem

uetustatemque non sentiunt cupressus, cedrus, hebenus.” 1 W.A., 2112-8.
2 Since it was found in its source, J', ed. cit., 160, 8, instead of the faulty reading of J:

“in qua sunt nouem milia, a qua accepta militia,” ed. cit., fol. c ii, verso, col. 1. The clause
was omitted in redaction J?, ed. cit., 81, 24 ff.
3 Ed. cit., 57, 2-4. 4 W.A., 566-8.
5 Ed. cit., fol. a v, recto, col. 1, where reading is ‘partes’ for ‘ petre.’
8 Ed. cit., 29, 4-7.

ill

Lan

des.

in tl

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis
The third is the description of Alexander’s appearance:

Bot of pe lyfe pat he ligt off he like was to nane,
Nouber of fetour ne of face _ to fadire ne to modyre;
pe fax on his faire hede__ was ferly to schawe,
Large lyons lockis _ pat lange ere and scharpe;
With grete glesenand ejen _— grymly he lokis,

Pat ware as blyckenend brijt _as blesand sternes,
8it ware bai vn-samen _ of serelypy hewys;

Pe tane to brene at a blische _as blak as a cole,

As any gare 3eten gold jalow was pe tothire.!

And he wald-ejed was __as pe writt schewys,

Bit it tellis me pis tale _ pe tethe in his hede

Was as bitand breme as any bare tuskis.

His steuyn stiffe was [&] steryn pat stonayd many.
And as a lyon he lete quen he loude romys.

His fell fygoure & his fourme _ fully be-takend

Pe prowis & be grete pryse _ pat he a-preyud eftire,
His hardynes, his hyndelaike & his hetter my3tis,
pe wirschip bat he wan quen he wex eldire.?

If these verses are largely based upon a text of which the main
elements were taken from the description in J*:

figura autem pueri nec patris nec matris effigiam habuit. Coma capitis
sicut leonis asper[s]ja videbatur. Oculi eius sicut stelle micantes sed
colore dispari radiabant, vnus niger, alter vero glaucus apparens. Dentes
siquidem eius erant acuti, impetus illius fervidus vt leonis. Forma quippe
illius vigorem et prudentiam, quem in posterum habuit, ostendebat,*

there are details which indicate other sources for the original of the
English poem. Thus the first lines point to a phrase in the same
description in Julius Valerius, which perhaps was not understood by
either the redactor of J*, who made use of it, or by the English
translator:

Bot of be lyfe pat he lijt off _ he like was to nane,
Nouber of fetour ne of face _ to fadire ne to modyre:

1 The Italian translation, ed. cit., 13 (‘gialla’), the thirteenth-century Basel redaction of
Lamprecht’s poem, ed. Kinzel, p. 20, v. 425 (‘gel’), and the fifteenth-century Aleranderchronik
des Meister Babiloth, ed. S. Herzog, I (1897), 41 (‘geel,’ ‘gelb’), agree in translating ‘glaucus’ in
J, as ‘yellow,’ while the Swedish translation, ed. cit., v. 489, agrees with the English poem
in the rendering ‘glwt’ [for ‘guwlt’).

2 W.A., 599-616. 3 Ed. cit., fol. a v, recto, col. 2.

if
aq
3
—
:
—
tle
a
|
L i
h :
q
n
¥
ta
4
j
.

130 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

vultus formaque omni alienus a Philippo, ne matri quidem ad similitu-
dinem congruus, ¢i [i.e. Nectanebus] quoque, cuius e semine credebatur,
facie diversus.'

Then, again, the phrase in the Historia, descriptive of Alexander’s
passionate temperament: “impetus illius fervidus vt leonis,” could
not have been the source of the description of his eyes in the English
poem:

His steuyn stiffe was [&] steryn pat stonayd many,

And asa lyon he lete quen he loude romys.
The redactor of J** in borrowing the equivalent phrase from Julius
Valerius: profususque omni spiritu et impetu, quo leones,? having in
mind the classical idiom: profundere vocem, must have rewritten it:
profusaque vox (or profusque vocem) omni spiriiu et impetu, quo
leones, unless, indeed, it was the translator who misunderstood the
correctly borrowed phrase, which has added another specific detail
to those given in the preceding phrases of Alexander’s appearance.
Certainly, the English phrase, ‘his fell fygoure & his fourme,’ could
have had its source only in a text which read, or which was misread,
as ‘aspectus illius severus’ instead of ‘inpetus illius fervidus.’ That
the reading ‘aspectus’ was found, or so misread, is shown by the
translation of the phrase: sa regardeure estoit comme de lyon, in the
French prose translation of J?.’

It is easy to see why the redactor of J*, in rewriting with his
own additions the description of Alexander’s eyes:

oculi eius sicut stelle micantes sed colore dispari radiabant, unus niger,
alter vero glaucus apparens,*
should have omitted for syntactical reasons, the adjective ‘magnis’
of his original J’:

oculi eius magni, micantes et non assimulabatur unus ad alterum, sed
unus erat niger et alter glaucus.®

1 Ed. cit., 12, 18-15. 2 Ed. cit., 12, 19-20.

3 Ed. cit., 29, 33-80, 1. The editor has noted (xiii) this mistranslation without attempting
to explain it. In the renouvellement of this translation in MS. Paris, B. N., f. fr. 1418 (ane.
7517) (in Hilka, ed. cit., iii) the phrase reads: “sa regardence estoit comme d’un lyon”’; J. Berger
de Xivrey, “Notice de la plupart des manuscrits grecs, latins et en vieux francais contenant
Vhistoire fabuleuse d’ Alexandre connue sous le nom de Pseudo-Callisthéne, suivis de plusieurs
extraits de ces manuscrits,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits, XIII, ii (1848), 298.

4 Ed. cit., fol. a v, recto, col. 2. 5 Ed. cit., 138, 2-3.

e
L

his

284

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 131

The word was one of the additions and changes made in the latter
redaction, written as early as the eleventh century,’ of the phrase
in the original translation:

oculi eius non similabantur ad alterum, sed unus est niger atque albus
est alter.”

J? kept the word as he found it in J!:

oculi eius magni, micantes et non assimilabatur unus ad alterum, sed
unus erat niger et alter glaucus,*

whence it passed, as so many other phrases, into J**, the source of
the description in the English poem:

With grete glesenand ejen grymly he lokis.

Il. THE GESTA HEREWARDI

If it is evident that the source of the poetical and prose trans-
lation was a redaction of J*, for which J’? furnished many, and
Julius Valerius furnished a few of the additions, the next point of
interest is the date of its composition. Fortunately, evidence is on
hand to date it within a quarter of a century. Without question it
was utilised by the author of the Gesta Herewardi, a Latin romance,
based upon the exploits of an English hero, who distinguished him-
self as a protagonist of his people during the Norman invasion of
the second part of the eleventh century.‘ The portrait of the hero:

1 Pfister, art. cit., 250-1; op. cit., 15-16. 2 Ed. Pfister, 54, 6-7.

3 Ed. cit., 29, 31-2. For other readings of the phrase in the same redaction, cf. F. Stabile,
“De codice Cavensi inedito ‘Vitae Alexandri Magni’ Leonis Archipresbyteri,” Rivista di filol.
class., XLI (1913) 284; “‘De codice Cavensi ‘Vitae Alexandri Magi’ quaestio altera accedunt
excerpta ex codice Neapolitano,” ib., XLIII (1915), 99-100.

The variant albus for glaucus shows that the manuscript of the Greek romance used by
Leo, belonged to the same family of manuscripts as those used by the author of the Byzantine
Bios "A\etavdpou and by the translator of the Pehlavi version, the source of the Syriac ver-
sion; cf. H. Christensen, “Die Vorlagen des byzantinischen Alexandergedichtes,” Sitzungsb.
a, philos.-philol. und d. hist. Kl. d. k. k. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen, 1897, 1, 66.
I shall have occasion to discuss this bizarre description of Alexander’s eyes, its variants, its
source, and influence in a forthcoming article: “The Color of Alexander’s Eyes in History
and Legend.”

‘ Cf. E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, IV (1871), 455-487:
H. W. C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins, 1066-1272, 1905, 25-6; for the
historical elements in the romance, cf. J. H. Round, Peerage and Pedigree, 1900, I, 268-70,
284-6; G. Gore Chambers, Victoria History of the County of Bedford, III (1908), 22-3.

tid
|
i
.
}
—
, :
ay
=
g
3
7
it
=

132 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

‘puer erat spectabilis forma et vultu decorus, valde decoratus et flavente
caesarie et prolixa facie, oculisque magnis, dextro ab alio variante
modium glaucus, unde severus aspectu fuit,!

presents the same combinations of details from the descriptions of
Alexander in the work of Julius Valerius, and the Historia, which
are found in the description of the hero in the Wars of Alexander.
But the indirect indebtedness of the Gesta to these two sources,
written as it was in the same language as they were, is even more
apparent than in the case of the English verse translation. That the
description of Alexander in Julius Valerius:

vultu formaque omni alienus a Philippo, ne matri quidem ad simili-
tudinem congruus, ei quoque, cuius e semine credebatur, facie diversus, sed
suo modo et filo pulcherrimus, subscrispa paululum et flavente caesarie, ut
comae sunt leoninae, oculis egregii decoris, altero admodum nigra quasi
pupilla est, laevo vero glauca atque coeli similis,*

as utilised by the redactor of J**, was the literal source, or gave the
suggestion for the phrases of the Gesta: “‘spectabilis forma et vultu
decorus, valde decoratus et flavente caesarie: dextro ab alio variante
modicum glaucus,” needs no argument. On the other hand, the
phrase in J*, through the medium of J**, which serves as an intro-
duction to the portrait: Figura autem pueri nec patris nec matris
effigiam habutt, furnished to the author of the Gesta the word ‘puer.’
The source for another trait in the description of Hereward is to
be found in the following phrase found in J‘, and J?,‘ and almost cer-
tainly in J** where it had been taken in from J*: sed propriam figuram
suam habebat. The author of the Gesta either found in his manuscript
of J** the reading ‘prolixam,’ or misread ‘propriam.’ For him the
phrase formed part of the portrait; and so he attributed a long face
to his hero. Again, the descriptive adjective applied to Hereward’s
eyes: ‘oculisque magnis,’ finds its equivalent in the ‘grete . . . een’
of the English poem, the original of which, as has been already
shown, was one of the many details taken from J’ by the redactor
of J** to amplify J*. Finally the severe expression of the English

1 In Estorie des Engles, solum la translacion maistre Geffrei Gaimar, ed. T. D. Hardy and

C. T. Martin (Rolls Series), I (1888), 341. 2 Ed. cit., 12, 13-22.
Ed. cit., 188, 1. ‘ Ed. cit., 29, 28-9.

’
% e
q
si
{

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 133

hero: ‘unde seuerus aspectu erat,’ confirms the suggestion that the
source of the English phrase: “his fell fygoure & his fourme,”
must have been a translation of the phrase in J**: “aspectus illius
severus.””

At the first reading it would seem that the phrase in the descrip-
tion of Hereward:

et ex nimia densitate membrorum admodum rotundus, sed nimis pro
statura mediocri agilis, et in omnibus membris tota comperta efficia,

had been suggested in part by two phrases in another less detailed
description of Alexander, added after the account of Alexander’s
death and funeral, by the redactor of J', following, perhaps, the plan
of some of the lives of Suetonius* and of the Scriptores Historiae
Augustae,* in which the personal characteristics of the emperors con-
cerned were only given after the accounts of their deaths.‘ This
description:

fuit enim Alexander statura mediocre, cervice longa, letis oculis, illus-
tribus, malis ad gratiam rubescentibus, reliquis membris corporis non sine
maiestate quadam decoris, victor omnium, sed vino et ira victus,®

was, with the exception of the first phrase, copied from the descrip-
tion given by Solinus (ca. 250) ® in his account of Alexander, in his
Collectanea rerum memorabilium, one of the most widely known of

1 Cf. p. 180, above.

? For evidence of the acquaintance with Suetonius in the Middle Ages, M. Manitius,
“Philologisches aus alten Bibliothekskatalogen,” Rhein. Museum, XLVII (1892), Ergdnzungs-
heft, 70-1; Gesch. d. lat. Literatur des Mittelalters, I (1911), 55-7, 63-4, 77, 116, 137, 248, 251,
487-490, 499, 501, 584, 639, 642, 643; IT (1928), 29, 42, 333, 652, 721, 794, 807.

* For use in Middle Ages, Manitius, “Philologisches, etc.,” 80; also Gesch. d. lat. Lit. d.
Mittelalters, I, 320-1.

‘ E. Klebs, “Die Sammlung der Scriptores Historiae Augustae,” Rhein. Mus., XLV
(1890), 441; F. Leo, Die griechisch-rimische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form, 1901,
7, 2738.

5 Ed. Zingerle, 264, 23-265, 2. This description is further enlarged in a collection of
excerpts from the Historia, found in Cod. Monac. 12260, ib., 68, of which one phrase: “‘crudelis
et sanguinis siciens,”” was suggested by two statements in Orosius, iii, 18, 8 & 10, ed. C. Zan-
gemeister (CSEL., V), 1882, 178, 13-14; 179, 10-12: “‘Sed nec minor eius in suos crudelitas
quam in hostem rabies fuit . . . Sed Alexander humani sanguis inexsaturabilis siue hostium
siue etiam sociorum, recentem tamen semper sitiebat cruorem.”

*Ed. Th. Mommsen, 2d ed., 1895, vi-vii; W. Teuffel, Gesch. d. rémisch. Lit., 6th ed.,
edited by W. Kroll & F. Skutsch, III (1913), 178; M. Schanz, Gesch. d. rémisch. Lit., 2d ed.,
II] (1923), 225-6.

:
ilk 4
:
i
i?
tH
—
—
al
ig om
|
=
4
3

134 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

the classics in the Middle Ages ' and the source of other additions
in J'.2 It is as follows:

forma supra hominem augustiore, cervice celsa, laetis oculis illustribus,
malis ad gratiam rubescentibus, reliquis corporis non sine maiestate qua
dam decoris. victor omnium vino et ira victus.®

Mommeen in his careful investigation of the sources of Solinus,
failed to discover the source of this passage,‘ which with three others
concerning Greek literary figures, he suggested had been taken from
some historical work.’ But the suggestion for the greater part of it
is to be found in a passage in physiognomical treatises. There is no
indication that Solinus made use of any Greek sources, and the
Latin compilation, based principally on the physiognomical work of
Polemon (f ca. 155),° with additions from those of Loxus (ca. 250) 7
and of the Pseudo-Aristotelian (before 300),* is posterior to his work
by a century (350-400).° But the latter work seems to have pre-
served as complete a text of the Greek original of Polemon, as the
Greek redaction of the Alexandrian Jew Adamantius, made in the
fifth century,'° for the passage in question. Further, it is preferable
to use as a basis of comparison with Solinus’ passage, based, as it

1 For manuscripts of the original work, and of excerpts from it, written from the tenth to
the fifteenth century, ed. cit., xxix-lv; for the use made of it from the fifth to the thirteenth
century, ib., xxv-xxix; M. Manitius, “Philologisches, etc.,”" 78-9; “‘Beitriige zur Geschichte
rémischen Prosaiker im Mittelalter,” Philologus, XLVII (1888), 562-6; “‘Nachtrige zu
Solin,” ib., LI (1892), 191-2; P. Toynbee, “‘Brunetto Latino’s (sic) Obligations to Solinus,”
Romania, XXIII (1894), 62~77; Ch. V. Langlois, La Connaissance de la nature et du monde au
moyen Gge d’aprés quelques écrits francais & l'usage des laics., 1911, 335, n. 2, 136, n. 2; A.
Marigo, ‘“‘Cultura letteraria e premanistica nelle maggiori enciclopedie del Dugento. Lo
“Speculum” ed il “‘Tresors,” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, LXVIII (1916), 298,
$13; Manitius, op. cit., I-I1, Register, s. v; F. Pfister, Philol. Wochenschr., 1912, 1129-33.

2 Ed. Zingerle, 22, n. 4; 24, n. 1; 27, n. 2; Pfister, op. cit., 15, 54, n. 9.

3 Ed. cit., 66, 15-17.

4 Ed. cit., xii, 66. 5 Ib., xii.

® R. Forster, Scriptores physiognomonici Graeci et Latini, 1893, 1, Ixxv-lxxx; Christ-
Stahlin-Schmid, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur, 5th ed., II, ii (1913), 533.

7 Forster, op. cit., I, Ixxi-Ixxiv.

8 Jb., xxi; Christ-Stihlin-Schmid, op. cit., I (1905), 605.

® Forster, op. cit., I, exxxvi-cxlv, where he also shows that its language is such that its
attribution to Apuleius must be negatived; cf. Schanz, op. cit., I1I (1922), 132; Teuffel, op.
cit., 100.

10 Forster, op. cit., I, c-ciii; M. Wellmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclop. d. class. Alter-
tumsw., I (1896), 343.

| (

anc
Lit

tha
not

190,

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 135

was, on a Latin intermediary. In the discussion in regard to eyes,
which is given such prominence in the physiognomical treatises, we
are informed concerning one class of trementes micantesque oculi et
salientes, quos Graect radopuévous dicunt, that:

at ubi moderatae magnitudinis et humidi (Gr. bypol) sunt atque perlucidi,
magnificum hominem, magnarum rerum, cogitatorem atque perfectorem
indicant; sane iracundum et vino deditum' et iactantem sui et cupidum
gloriae ultra condicionem humanum ostendunt. cui huiusmodi oculorum
signa contigerint. Scias quia his oculis aestimatur, etiam Alexander Mag-
nus fuisse.

(of yap rovodro, vonuara adpa, Spacrhpa Epywv peyadwy rapé-
xovrat, TOAuns Kal weyadouvolas els Gxpov fxovtes, dpyis axparets Kal
peyadavxot, kouddvous, ob rbppw Exery dpéxovTar Kar’
dvOpwrous, domep 6 Maxeddy 2

But if the passage in the physiognomical treatise suggested the
phrases in Solinus’s description: ‘forma supra hominem augustiore,’
and ‘victor omnium utino et tra victus, was it anything more than
a gloss upon a description, similar to the source of Plutarch’s ac-
count of Alexander’s personal appearance? For in it, and in the
same order, mention is made of his neck, his liquid eyes, and of his

complexion, with its tendency to heighten in color:

THY TE TOD abxévos els Kal THY
. . . Hv Nevkds, ds daciv. 5é evxdrns éxedoimacer aitod rd
wadiora Kal 7d rpdowrov.®

The phrases ‘ceruice celsa’ and ‘malis ad gratiam rubescentibus’ are
assuredly a free interpretation of the items in regard to the poise
of the neck, inclining to the left,‘ and the flushing of the white
color of his chest, and particularly of his face. In any case neither
the poise of the neck, inclining towards the left, in Plutarch, nor

1 Velleius Paterculus (ca. 30 A.D.), in a comparison he makes between Alexander and
Caesar (II, 41, 1), states of the latter: “‘sed sobrio neque iracundo.”

? Forster, op. cit., II, 50, 3-4, 6-13; cf. for the Greek text of Adamantius, I, $28, 1, 4-10,
and II, 57, 18-15. 3 Alexander, c. 4.

‘ In the Epitome, written ca. 400, attributed to Aurelius Victor, M. Schanz, Gesch. d. lat.
Litt., 2d ed., IV (1914), 75, the emperor Caracalla, who modelled his personal appearance on
that of Alexander, is described: “‘ Ad laevum humerum. conversa cervice, quod in ore Alexandri
notaverat” (c. 21); cf. J. J. Bernouilli, Die erhaltenen Darstellungen Alexanders des Grosses,
1905, 18-19.

\
j
it
i
|
—
=
H
|
}
ie
4
—
4
its
op.
ler-
a4
4
7 :

136 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

the long neck, in Solinus, would have been suggested by a recon-
struction! of Alexander’s appearance from a physiognomical treatise,
as both of those features are consistently noted in such treatises as
bad characteristics.”

If such was the ultimate source of the second description of
Alexander in J', the author of that redaction substituted for the
rather vague statement of Solinus, ‘forma supra hominem augustiore,’
the more specific statement in regard to his height, “fuit enim
Alexander statura mediocre,’ for which he could have found authority
in no less than three episodes of the work* he was editing, in which
emphasis is laid on his short stature. Darius seeing the picture of
Alexander brought him by the Syrian refugees, ‘despexit eam propter
parvitatem forme eius’; when Alexander presents himself at the court
of Darius, as his own envoy, the Persian courtiers: ‘“despexerunt
staturam Alexandri eo, quod esset parva,’ and the Indian king Porus
was ready to settle the fortunes of the war by a duel with Alexander:
‘despiciendo illum propter parvitatem forme eius eo, quod esset statura
parvus.’ With this addition, the second description passed from J!
to J’,* J*,> and J**; but in some of the manuscripts of J* it is evident
that at least the detail in regard to Alexander’s height was utilised
to round out the first description, as is shown by the addition to
the description in the French translation of the final phrase: ‘é
tout fust s’estature petite,’ for which there is no authority in the pub-
lished Latin text.® If the author of the Wars of Alexander omitted,
for some reason, all mention of his hero’s height, he has translated
the phrase in the second description: ‘reliqguis membris corporis non

1 For such reconstructions, see my forthcoming article: “‘The Occidental Versions of the
Biography of Alexander the Great by MuSéabir ibn Fatik.”

2 Ed. cit., 1, 64, 4-5; 218, 16-17; 222, 5-6; 366, 10-11, 19-20; $70, 8-9, 18; II, 72, 10-1];
77, 6-7; 211, 3-11.

2 Ed. cit., 158, 7-9; 186, 5-6; 213, 26-8.

‘ Ed. cit., 259, 32-260, 2.

5 Ed. cit., fol. k vii, verso.

‘Ed. Hilka, 30, 1-2. In the second description in the work noted on p. 133, n. 5, on the
other hand, the first description is repeated, Zingerle, op. cit. 68. In the description of Aler-
ander in one redaction of the Spanish version of MuSSabir’s life (cf. p. 125, n. 5, the phrase:
‘pequenno de cuerpo,’ has been added, Knust. op. cit., 307, n. 5), evidently on the authority of
one of the redactions of the Historia, since it is not found in the Arabic original, B. Meissnet,

*Mussabirs Akbar el-Iskender,” Zs. d. deutsch. morgenland. Geselisch., XLIX (1895), 620.

:
a
b
a

the
for
anc
wa;
of
nob

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 137
sine maiestate quadam decoris,’ as it was rewritten and interpolated
in the first description by the redactor of J**;

pis barne, quen he borne was__as me pe boke tellis,
Mit wele a-prefe for his a-port _ to any prince oute.!

The use of the phrase in the first description was no reason for its
omission in the second description in J**, any more for such an omis-
sion being made in the Latin original of the French translation of
J,2 as is seen in its prose version, since the end of the English
poem is unfortunately lost:

Alexander was a man bot of a comon stature . . . and all pe remenant
of his lymmes ware faire & semely & lyke vn-till a lorde.*

It might be postulated that the author of the Gesta found the
suggestion for the item in regard to his hero’s height in the phrase
in regard to Alexander’s height, which would have been interpolated
in the first description in J**; but such a supposition is not necessary
since he made use of another passage of the Historia, which directly
follows the second description.‘

But the redactor of J' was not satisfied with making use of
Solinus’ description in his own second description. In order to
amplify the description in Leo’s translation he had recourse to the
same chapter in the Latin physiognomical compilation, which had
been utilized by Solinus. From the general statement in regard to
the general type of eyes under which those of Alexander were
classified: “‘trementes micantesque oculi et salientes,”* he drew his
attributive adjective “magni.” If the compilation specifies Alex-

1 W.A., 597-8. The beginning of the prose translation, containing this phrase is missing.

2 Ed. cit., 260.

3 Ed. cit., 114, 29-80. The end of the Wars of Alexander, containing this description, is
lost.
‘ For the sake of completeness it may be well to note how Charles Kingsley developed
the description of the Gesta in his novel Hereward the Wake, which follows the Latin romance
for the general outline of the story:

“His face was of extraordinary beauty, save that the lower jaw was too long and heavy,
and that his eyes wore a strange and almost sinister expression, from the fact that one of them
was gray, and the other blue. He was short, but of immense breadth of chest and strength
of limb; while his delicate hands and feet and long locks of golden hair marked him of most
noble, and even, as he really was, of ancient royal blood,” ed. 1889, 19.

* Forster, op. cit., II, 50, 3-4.

i
>
:
f
—
y
it
—
i
the Hl
4
y of
:
4

138 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

ander’s eyes as being of only “moderatae magnitudinis,” in contrast
with those which were very large (which were indicative of bad
characteristics) : “si magni, stultitia ac furiis attinentur,” ! large eyes
are, nevertheless, a distinguishing feature of the hero, however
much the size may have been differentiated in the treatise.

It is not surprising that the redactor should have found this work
in the monastic library in which he found the others which he used
to supplement Leo’s translation. That it was not a rare book in
mediaeval libraries is shown by the use of it made of it in the first
half of the eleventh century in the encyclopaedic work, De floribus
rerum naturalium, by Arnold of Saxony,” by Gilles de Corbeil (1140-
1224?), the physician of Philip Augustus, in his physiognomical
treatise in Latin verse,* by Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) in his
De animalibus,‘ and by Pietro d’Abano in his physiognomical trea-
tise, written in 1295.5 Further, of the manuscripts on which Forster
based his edition, one was copied for the celebrated Marbod, bishop
of Rennes (1096—1123?),° and another is dated 1132.” Considering
the evidence in regard to the general acquaintance with it in the
Middle Ages, it is remarkable that outside of the mention of it,
Phisionomia Lozi (MS. Lopi) Medici, in the will of Eberhard, count
of Tarvis (Friule), made in 873,* it can only be identified by name
in a few library catalogues of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
In that of the Sorbonne (1338) it appears as phisonomia Leschis,’
in that of the collection of John Erghome (ca. 1390) in the Austin
Friars’ Library, York, as Phisonomia trium auctorum,' in that of
Amplonius von Ratinck (ca. 1412) as Optimus liber de phistonomia,"
and in that of Peterhouse College, Cambridge (1418) as: Phisomia

1 Foerster, op. cit., Il, 50 4-5. 2 Ib., 1, clxiii-elxv.

1b., I, elxii-elxiii. * 1b., I, elxv—-clxx. 5 Ib., I, clxx-clxxi.

I, exlvi. 7 Ib., I, exlvii.

8 G. Becker, Catalogi Bibliothecarum antiquarum, 1885, 18, 38; p. 30; cf. Forster, op. cit.,
’ ") L. Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Nationale, II (1881), 67 (20);
for date p. 8.

10 M. R. James, “The Catalogue of the Library of the Augustinian Friars at York,” in
Fasciculus Ioanni Willis Clark dicatus, 1909, 56; for date 10-11.

11 W. Schum, Beschreibendes Verzeichniss der amplonianischen Handschrift-Sammlung 24
Erfurt, 1887, 812 (art. $2). For its identity with the work in question, cf. description of the
surviving manuscript F. 378, ib., 264; Forster, op. cit., I, cxlvii.

4
t
bi
of
a
hi
189
seri
Chi
and
que
mu
as
colle
MS:
(191
Acco
Norn
deat]
“Vel
Ingul
sonst
Thats
inspir
: antici
chans
writte
of St.
hl. Ni
his Bi
6)
a can¢
(Rolls

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 139

ex dictis Arist. Loxt medici et Phalemonis de cantar’ compilata.!_ The
French translation, found in a paper manuscript of the fifteenth
century,” could not have been made before the fourteenth century,
to judge from the fragment published of it.*

According to the Gesta itself, its written source was an English
work of which the author was Leofric, the chaplain of Hereward;*‘
but one may feel assured that that work did not contain a portrait
of the hero. In fact, the English work may not have existed any
more than the “‘liber Anglico sermone conscriptus,” ° which William,®
a monk of the abbey of St Albans pretended he was translating in
his Vita sanctorum Albani, Amphibali et sociorum,’ a work of propa-

1M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Peterhouse,
1899, 14 (No. 201). If the last phrase means that it was copied from a Canterbury manu-
script, this is further evidence to substantiate Dr James’s suggestion that the scriptorium of
Christ Church made copies for other monastic libraries, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury
and Dover, 1908, xxx, Ixxxvii-Ixxxix, although no mention is made of this work in the cata-
logue of either Christ Church or St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, [b., 1-401. The infre-
quency of its mention in catalogues may be due to the fact that it was confused with the
much widely spread Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomy, translated by Bartholomew of Messina,
as was the case with the title in both the manuscript and the catalogue in the Amplonian
collection, Qu. 295; cf. Schum, op. cit., 812 (art. 29); Forster, op. cit., I, exlviii-cxlix, and in
MSS Harleian 3969, Sloane 2422; and Ashmolean 1471; Forster, /. c.

? Paris. B. N., f. fr. 2017; Bibliothéque Nationale. Département des manuscrits, 1, ancien
fonds, 1868, 347.

*L. Jordan, “Physiognomische Abhandlungen,” Romanische Forschungen, XXIX
(1910-11), 681, 688-690, where only the preface of the translator has been printed.

‘ Ed. cit., 339, “‘editum Anglico stilo a Lefrico Diacono, ejusdem ad Brun presbyter.”
According to the Estorie des Engleis of Geffrei Gaimar, written ca. 1150 (J. Vising, Anglo-
Norman Language and Literature, 1923, 49), his chaplain, who was with him at the time of his
death, was named Ailward (var. Alward, Aelward), ed. cit., vv. 5620-1. Cf. Liebermann,
“Ueber Ostenglische Geschichtsquellen des 12. 18. 14. Jahrhunderts, besonders den falschen
Ingulf,” Neues Archit d. Ges. f. altdeutsche Geschichtskunde, XVIII (1893), 242, “Denn jede
sonstige Spur von Leofric oder seinem Werke fehlt, auch bei den Erzihlern von Herewards
Thaten.” The same scholar, art. cit., 242, in expressing his suspicions as to the sources of
inspiration of the Gesta as “‘ein Kniff mancher Chanson de Geste und Kloster-Fundatio,” has
anticipated by several years the thesis of Becker and Bédier in regard to the origins of the
chansons de geste.

5 AA.SS., Junii V, 129. Since the original is dated by the forger in 590, it would have been
written in Welsh. On a similar attempt to attribute a British or English source to the Life
of St Ninian by Ailred of Rievaulx (+ 1167), cf. K. Strecker, “Zu den Quellen fiir das Leben
hl. Ninian,” Neues Archiv, XLITI (1920), 4-6, 15 ff.; F. M. Powicke, “ Ailred of Rievaulx and
his Biographer, Walter Daniel,” Bull. of the John Rylands Library, VI (1922), 475, n. 3.

® Was this William Martel, the sacristan of the abbey, who later put himself forward as
a candidate to succeed Thomas as prior? Gesta abbatum Monasterii Albani, ed. A. T. Riley
(Rolls Series), I (1867), 185. 7 AA.SS., Junii V, 129-138.

=
—
d
8
i
—
—
— =
is —
P
at
3
.
in
of
a
0); =
the
4
4

140 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

ganda, written between 1166 and 1188.’ But it is possible that the
author of the Gesta found a suggestion for one of the items of the
description of his hero in an adventure common to English heroes
in history and romance, particularly to the hero of King Horn, to
some version which he would seem to be indebted for other details
in his Latin romance.’ In having his hero adopt the traditional
disguise of a minstrel, found in these works,* he doubtless found in

one of them an account of how the hero disguised his blond hair, as I
his hero does. To aid in the escape of a princess, the sweetheart of
his feudal lord, he disguises himself as a minstrel: “per unguenta |
vi
setpso transfigurato, mutataque fulvente caesarie in nigredinem.”' d
Another time he presents himself under the name of his nephew to le
his own mistress, who, nevertheless, recognizes him: hi
et diligenter intuita per oculorum acies et ex venusta facie et flavente of
caesarie corporisque efficacia, eum tandem agnovit.®
In the first of these passages, and in another passage of the same me
episode where the princess recognizes him under his disguise: ‘nam -
ipsum statim illa per oculorum acies agnovit, nam in membrorum
effigie ipsum esse Herewardum intellexit,’* mention is made of the o
eyes of the hero. It may be that the expression ‘acies oculorum’ is bit
only a locution for the eyes themselves; but is it not more probable A
(
1 That is to say during the priorship of Simon, who was the “inventor Beati Amphibali,”
Gesta I, 183-194. On the source of the name of the saint, J. Loth, “Saint Amphibalus,” trar
Rev. Celt., XI (1890-1), 148-9.
2 Cf. F. J. Child, English and Scottish Ballads, V (1894-7), 287b; M. Deutschbein, Studien
zur Sagengeschichte Englands, 1 (1906), 55-7; L. A. Hibbard, Medieval Romances in English,
1924, 90-3.
3 A. Brandl, “Spielmannsverhiltnisse in friihmittelenglischer Zeit,” Sitzungsb. d. Berl. Ak,
1910, 881-5, who has collected and discussed instances of the episode, has failed to include
the episode in the Gesta; cf. K. Beug, “Die Sage von Kénig Athelstan,” Herrig’s Archit
CXLVIII (1925), 187.
4 Ed. cit., 349. Compare the means of which “Der Goldener” in popular tales, makes
use to hide his golden hair, F. Panzer, Hilde-Gudrun, 1901, 260ff.; J. Bolte u. G. Polivka, Ar
merkungen zu den Kinder- und Hausmdrchen der Briider Grimm, III (1918), 109-111. 1
Ed. cit., $57.
* Jb., $51. As soon as she saw him: “‘notam formam rimatur, sed valde colorem miratur.” Gramm
Ina similar episode in King Horn, ed. J. Hall, 1891, pp. 62 ff., the mistress of the hero recog had in
nizes him only after he had cleaned his face which he had stained. In the Prise d’Orang, 2&5
ed. Jonckbloet, 376-881, 745-789, Guillaume au Court Nez, who disguised himself in the sam ey:
*¢

way, was recognized at once by a pagan who had escaped from Nimes, which had been ap
tured by Guillaume.

§
y
a
5
|
4
f
4
in ludo
J

FEF FF FF

BEES,

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 141

that it refers to the sparkling glance of the eyes, a characteristic of
heroes of divine origin in Old-Norse literature?! At any rate in
these passages of the Gesta, no mention is made of the color of the

es.
™ But there are other indications that the author of the Gesta used
the redaction of the Historia, which was later to be the source of the
Wars of Alexander. The passage in regard to the early youth of
Hereward:

inerat etiam illi a pueritia multa et fortitudo corporis: et perfectum
virum hujus ex facultate statim in adolescenti forma virtutis ejus eum
demonstrabat, et erat gratia fortitudinis e virtute animi in cunctis excel-
lenter praeditus,?

had as its source a text of which the elements are found in a phrase
of Julius Valerius:

crescebat ergo, ut corporis gratia ita studiorum quoque et prudentiae
maiestate, et cum his una regiae disciplinae,*

and in two phrases of redaction J* of the Historia:

forma quippe illius vigorem et prudentiam quem in posterum habuit,
ostendebat. . . . In scolis itaque vbi sedebat, pugnabat cum eis tam in
litterin loquelis et velocitate obtinens principatum.*

A combination of these phrases gave the resulting text of J**, as
translated in the English poem: *

His felle figoure & his fourme _ fully be-takend

pe prowis & pe grete pryse _ pat he a-preuyd eftire,
His hardynes, his hyndelaike & his hetter my3tis,®

pe wirschip bat he wan _quen he wex eldire.. .

pus with his feris he fajzt_ as I fynd wreten,

As wele in letter & in lere _as any laike ellis. . .

He had na pere in na place— _ pat proued so his tyme,
For pe principalte of all pe pake he of a-prese wynnis.

Cf. J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, III, 111; P. Hermann, Die Heldensagen des Saxo
Grammaticus (Erlduterungen zu den ersten neun Biichern der danischen Geschichte des Saxo
Grammaticus, Theil II), 1922, 134, n. 2. But, then, again, the author of the Gesta could have
had in mind the description of Alexander’s eyes in J**, where they were connoted as ‘micantes.’

* Ed. cit., 341-2. 3 Ed. cit., 12, 21-3. 4 Ed. cit., l.c.

* Ed. cit., vv. 613-16; 648-4; 647-8.

_ * Compare the phrase of the Gesta, in the passage cited p. 144, below: ‘crudelis in opere,
in ludo severus.’

—
ih
of
to
—
ite
|
me
um
he
ble
—
‘

142 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

Further, one finds in the English poem an interpolation, a develop-
ment of the phrase: ‘in scolis itaque ubi sedebat pugnabat cum eis,’ of
which the following verses form part:

In absens of Arystotill _ if any of his feris

Raged with him vnridly or _rofe him with harme,

Him wald he kenely on pe croune __knok with his tablis,

pat al to-brest wald be bordis & be blode folowe,

If any scolere in pe scole _ his skorne at him makis,

He skapis him full skathely __ bot if he skyp better.!

It would seem that the Latin original of this passage was the source
of the account of the quarrelsome life of the youthful Hereward in
the Gesta:

crudelis in opere, et in ludo severus, libenter inter coetanos commovens
bella, et inter majores aetate in urbibus et in villis saepe suscitans certa-
mina, nullum sibi in ausibus et fortitudinum executionibus parem nec
majores etiam aetate relinquens. Hic ergo dum in talibus adhuc juven-
culus et multis majoribus animositatem progressibus de die in diem prof-
ceret, et juvenis supra modum in viriles actus transcenderet, interdum
nemini parcebat quem vel in fortitudine aliquantum rebellem suae virtutis
cognoscebat seu in certamine.*

Further, it is evident that the author of the Gesta, in his account
of the English hero going disguised as a potter to the court of the
invading Norman conqueror, made use of the account in the His-
toria of Alexander’s visit to the court of Darius, when he repre-
sented himself as his own ambassador. In that work Alexander is
led into the banquet hall, where, to cite the text of J’, instead of
that of the printed edition of J*,? which has omitted the equivalent
of the most important word in the passage:

Perses qui sedebant in convivio despexerunt staturam Alexandri ¢
quod parva esset, ignorantes qualis sapientia et qualis virtus et audacis
erat in tali corpusculo.*

1 Ed. cit., 637-42. Henneman, op. cit., 59-60, considered that this passage was an addi-
tion of the English poet, descriptive of the manners of the English schools of his time.

2 Ed. cit. 342.
3 Ed. cit., fol. e i, recto, col. 1: “‘Perses vero videntes formam Alexandri, sapientiam,

audaciam et fortitudinem, que in tali corpusculo latebat (sic) penitus ignorantes.”
4 Ed. cit., 98, 20-26. The passage is missing in Pr. Al., 47; in W.A. it is translated,
2930-3:

aa
: ]
h
c
ir
ad
as
|
D:
fla
ant
vid
sec’
err:

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 143

While at the banquet one of the Persian princes recognized him,
and confirmed his suspicions:

quidam autem princeps Darii, cui nomen erat Anapolus, sedens in con-
vivio intuebatur faciem Alexandri — viderat enim eum quando iussu Darii
juerat Macedoniam vt iussu ipsius tolleret censum a Phillippo. Hic intelli-
gens vocem eius et figuram eius contemplans intra se cogitare et dicere-
cepit: “‘Nonne hic est Alexander?” !

In the Gesta, Hereward, when hawking his wares, is called into the
kitchen to make a sale, where, notwithstanding his disguise: “tonso
crine et barba, lubricaque veste indutus,”* he is recognized by one
of the officers of the palace:

ac quidam de praepositis villae forte superveniens, viso illo statim

intulit, nunquam se vidisse virum sic facie Herwardo consimilem nec instar
staturae illius, sicut egenus assimilari potest ingenuo et rusticus militi.®

So he had him brought into the main hall of the palace so that the
assembled company might see him:

et diligenter intuitus, alii dicebant hominem tam mediocri staturae non
esse tantae virtutis nec fortitudinis sicut fama de eo vulgatur.‘

Alexander, as soon as the prince had voiced his suspicions to
Darius:

statimque se erigens de loco suo extra triclinium exiliuit. Et accipiens
flameam de manu cuiusdam Perse, ascendit equufi inuenit
ante palacium Darii alligatus et cursu velocissimo fugiebat. Perse vero
videntes hec, omnes armati cum strepitu maximo ascenderunt et
secuti sunt velociter Alexandrum. Sed cum nox esset obscura, ceperunt
errare: alii ledebant facies suas per ramos arborum, alii foueas incidebant.®

Pe popill of Persy _opon pis prince waitis,
Pe litillaike of his like lathely pat pai spyse;
Bot pe wisedome & be worthenes & of be wale thewis
Pat in pat cors was enclosed _kend pai full litill.
Icite from J*, ed. cit., e i, verso, coll. 1-2, of which the text is closely followed in W.A.,
2954-61, except in the last line: “‘Is pis nogt Philip son be first’” which corresponds to the
reading in J' and J*: N. iste est filius Philippi (J*: Ph. f.).
2 Ed. cit., $85. 3 Ed. cit., 386. 4 Ed. cit., l.c.
* In J, ed. cit., 100, 4-7, Alexander “‘inuenit quendam ex Persis tenentem in manu faculum.
Percussit in capite et tollens ei faculum,” but since the phrase is not in W.A., 2670-1, it was
probably not in J®*,

dé
—— 8
|
m —
—
1S
j
if
—
|

144 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

Hereward, when freed from suspicion on account of the smallness
of his person, was dismissed to the kitchen, where, insulted and
abused by the scullions, he kills with his fist one who had hit him
and, when attacked by his fellows with kitchen utensils:

arrepto de foco hastile, contra omnes sese protexit uno eorum interfecto,
plurimisque vulneratis.'

Arrested and about to be put in chains, he snatches a sword from
the scabbard of one of his guards, kills him, and escapes from the
rest. Free:

per sepes et foveas extra clam ad inferiorem curiam domus descendit,
ubi jumentum suum repperit.?

He slays another of the royal servants who came in his way:

quo facto, multi secuti sunt eum, sed omnibus una erat persecutio
tardior,
and, as Alexander did, escaped under the cover of night:

et sic vespertino tempore et in nocte lucescente luna.

If Alexander’s horse drops dead in the river which he has to cross:
sed antequam exiret, dissolutus est fluvius, et equus eius absorbuit, et
ipse cum difficultate maxima exiliuit,
in the Gesta, it is not Hereward, but one of Hereward’s pursuers,
who gets into difficulties in the forest:
ubi repente equus suus fessus succubuit, et ipse vix pedibus subsistere
valuit.
Certainly, if the author of the Gesta based his work on an English

original, he did not scruple to amplify the story he found there
with episodes and phrases from a version of the well-known Historia

de preliis.
Finally, the author of the Gesta found in the passage of his Latin
original, which was the source of part of his description of his hero,
a suggestion for the phrase in which he tells at what age the youthful
Hereward was exiled from his native land:
in decimo octavo aetatis anno a patre et patria expulsus.*
2 Ib., $87. 3 Ed. cit., $48.

1 Ed. cit., 386.

WHE Os

a
4
4
a
4
}
4

A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis 145

According to a phrase added by the redactor of J'! to Leo’s enumera-
tion of the years of Alexander’s life and of the years he spent in
war and peace,” which passed in turn without change into J?,* J*, and
doubtless into J**, it was at just that age that Alexander began his
career as a conqueror:

ab octavo decimo nativitatis sue incepit committere bellum.‘

Il. THE DATES OF REDACTION J* AND J*

The date of the Gesta Herewardi can be fixed pretty accurately.
Its author was Richard, monk of the Benedictine monastery of Ely:
“Libro de Gestis Herewardi dudum a Doctissimo Fratre Nostro
Beatae Memoriae Ricardo edito,” * according to the statement of
Thomas, a monk of the same monastery, at the end of his summary
of the Latin romance, in the second book of his Historia Etiensis.*
Thomas completed his work, after another Richard,’ author of a
history of the monastery, the source of the third book of Thomas’s
history, had become prior, that is after 1177.° If Richard, the author
of the Gesta, had been dead for several years at that date, his work
could be dated 1150.° Consequently if he used J**, the interpolated
redaction J* of the Historia de preliis, it would be necessary to at-
tribute to the J* redaction a date anterior by an hundred years to
1236, when it served as the source of the Latin poem on Alexander

1 Ed. cit., 180, 15-18. 2 Ed. cit., 265, 3-4. 3 Ed. cit., 260, 4-9.

‘ Ed. cit., fol. k vii, verso, col. 2. The only variant is “‘cepit” for “‘incepit” in J‘ and J?.
The end of the Wars of Alexander, which contained the phrase, is missing, but in the prose
version it is rendered: “Fra pe twentid jere of his birthe he gaffe hym to warre,”’ ed. cit., 114, 34.
In the Latin compilation which serves as an introduction to the Alerandreis of Gautier de
Chatillon, is found the variant of the phrase: “autem Allexander anno. 18. etatis incepit mundum
subiugare,” which indicates the use of redaction J'; A. Hilka, “Der Zauberer Neptanabus
nach einem bisher unbekannten Erfurter Text,” Mitteil. d. schlesisch. Ges. f. Volkskunde,
XIII-XIV (1911-12), 198. For variants of the number in other versions, cf. J. Zacher,
Pseudocallisthenes, 1867, 176; A. Ausfeld, Der griech. Alexanderroman, 1907, 121.

’ Ed. D. J. Stewart (Anglia Christiana Society), 1848, 239 (Lib. II, cap. 108).

_ Ed. cit., 224-239: cf. Freeman, op. cit., IV, 459, n. 2; Liebermann, art. cit., Neues Archiv,
T, 242.

’ Stewart, op. cit., v-vi, and Liebermann, “Zur Geschichte Byrhtnots, des Helden von
Maldon,” Herrig’s Archiv, CI (1898), 27, have made the two Richards the same person, an
error corrected by M. Bateson, Dict. of Nat. Biogr., XLII (1896), 198: LVI (1898), 173.

® Sir William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. Cayley, Ellis & Bandinel, I (1846),
467; Bateson, I. c.

* Cf. Liebermann, art. cit., Neues Archiv, XVIII, 241-2.

ane
— =
q
'
§
—
|
e
h
a
0,
ul —

146 A New Redaction of the Historia de Preliis

by Quilichinus of Spoleto.! If J** was used as a source of the Gesta
ca. 1250, it is necessary to assume that J* must have been well enough
known several years before that date to serve as the basis of re-
daction J** of the Historia, and accordingly may be dated as early
at least as the first quarter of the twelfth century. To establish
the date of J* within the limits of a quarter of a century reduces to
a minimum the very liberal date hitherto assigned to it, from the
end of the eleventh century to 1236, that is, from the date of the
composition of J' to that of the poem of Quilichinus.? That there
were so many Continental vernacular versions of J** can scarcely
leave any doubt but that J* was of Continental origin. But since
none of these vernacular versions I have had the opportunity to
study show any indications of using the postulated redaction J**,—
a source of the Gesta Herewardi and the original of two fifteenth-
century English translations, W. A. and Pr. Al. —, the J** redaction
may be safely accounted as the work of some English cleric. This
is not surprising, considering the interest shown in England in the
Alexander legend, including such compilations as that of the Parua
recapitulatio de eodem Alexandro et de suis,‘ and the Compilation of
St Albans, made at least as early as the twelfth century, the date of
the earlier of the two manuscripts containing it.®

1 Pfister, art. cit., 287: P. Lehmann, “‘Quilichinus von Spoleto,” Philol. Wochenschr., 1918,

812-15.
2 Cf. Pfister, op. cit., 16, and Hilka’s statement in his review of that work, Philol.
Wochenschr., 1916, 80: ‘‘J* fallt in die Zeit Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts bis 1236.”

3 Pfister, art. cit., 284-5; op. cit., 39.

4 Hamilton, art. cit., Mélanges Antoine Thomas, p. 199.

5 F. P. Magoun, Jr, “The Compilation of St Albans and the Old-French Prose Alexander

Romance,” Speculum, I (1926), 225.

CorNELL UNIVERSITY.

E
1
3
di
di
de
: to

THE SURVIVAL OF MEDIAEVAL INTELLECTUAL
INTERESTS INTO EARLY MODERN TIMES

By LYNN THORNDIKE

HOSE external conditions of life which we call mediaeval
largely persisted into early modern times or even until the
French Revolution or the nineteenth century. In most parts of
Europe the life of the peasant and the land system were little altered.
In most towns the picturesque walls and towers, streets and houses,
remained essentially unchanged, except that with the falling-off in
population whole quarters might be deserted, or with the decline in
taste charming Gothic arches, windows, columns, and ornamentation
might be walled up, plastered over, cut through, or otherwise con-
cealed and disfigured. To a large extent, save in royal capitals and
newcommercial centres, the old buildings were made to suffice. Thus,
if a new school were opened, instead of occupying a new building, it
would move into some half-ruined monastery or abandoned hospital.
The feudal castles were battered down and dismantled only in the
seventeenth century. If knighthood was not still in flower in the
sixteenth century, nevertheless a captain of that time could say
that a good cavalier on a good horse was as superior a being as there
could be in this world.’ The gild system was essentially the same in
the seventeenth century as in the thirteenth,’ and did not disappear
on the continent of Europe until the French Revolution and the
middle of the nineteenth century. Quaint old custom and _pro-
cedure, popular festivals and liberties, had been reduced; artisans
worked longer and were paid less; * in the gilds there was less charity 4
1 G.d’ Avenel, Les revenus d’un intellectuel de 1200 1913 (Paris: Flammarion, 1922), p. 274.

* Indeed, Espinas would put the period of its height in the fourteenth and fifteenth
rather than the thirteenth century.

3 E. Martin-Saint-Léon, Histoire des cornorations de métiers des origines jusqu’a 1791
5rd. ed. (Paris: Alcan, 1922), pp. 501-502. It was especially from 1300 to 1550 that the con-
dition and pay of artisans grew worse. In the seventeenth century they had a longer working
day than in the thirteenth century, and their pay had not yet risen to correspond.

* On the general decline of charity in the sixteenth century see Lucien Romier, Le royaume
de Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Perrin, 1922), II, 75. Various local histories might be adduced

to the same effect.
147

1
bik
‘
2
—
3
|
>
f
3
}
x
r
—- =
;
4

148 Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests

and unity. Nor had the lot of the teacher and writer improved.
But all this was in the nature of subtraction rather than alteration
and innovation.

The point I wish to make is this: if the external conditions were
still so largely mediaeval, why should thought change? If man is
largely dependent for his ideas upon his environment, such new
thought as there was in the early modern period will be found to be
based upon, or connected with, new or newly discovered things:
manuscripts of Greek tragedies and comedies, and of the essays of
Plutarch and Lucian, new continents across the Atlantic, new scien-
tific instruments like the telescope and microscope which opened up
vast realms of nature to discovery. Otherwise the old thought and
methods of thought might be expected to go on as before.

Much has been written, it is true, concerning the new spirit of
the Renaissance and of the Reformation. But gradually it is becom-
ing recognized that both the humanists and the reformers were sin-
gularly lacking in originality. As the seventeenth century opened,
Hugo Grotius was the precocious pet of the humanistic circles in
which moved Scaliger, Casaubon, and Heinsius. The first text he
edited was that most early-mediaeval of all early-mediaeval works,
the De nuptiis philologiae et mercurtt of Martianus Capella; his first
original poem was on a theme which had been repeatedly treated in
the mediaeval religious drama.' Nevertheless it may be admitted
that in the early modern centuries there was a certain turning away
from mediaeval tradition. The humanist, philologer, or antiquarian
became enamoured instead of the classical tradition; the reformer
turned away in disdain from the traditions of the mediaeval church.
Perhaps with most zest of all, absolute monarchs like Francis I cast
aside the ancient laws of the realm and the solemn promises of their
predecessors, riding roughshod over past privileges, franchises, and
institutions, whether Estates, Parlement, or University. This break
with the immediate past was undoubtedly important. But, except
that it also seriously affected the fine arts, it was in the main limited
to such fields as have already been mentioned.

1 Wm. S. M. Knight, The Life and Works of Hugo Grotius, London: Sweet and Maxwell,
1925.

aM
4
q
q
+

Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests 149

In other fields the course of development already initiated in the
mediaeval centuries went on uninterrupted. There was no sufficient
occasion, for instance, for a physician or a lawyer or a mathema-
tician or a chemist or an optician or a clock-maker or a cartographer
or a munition-manufacturer to reject the mediaeval foundations
that had been laid for him. “It was a continuation of a mediaeval
tradition,” says Rashdall, “that made Montpellier and Padua the
centres of European medicine in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.”” And “there were surgical writers at Bologna as early
as the second half of the thirteenth century whose works continued
in sufficient circulation to be included among the earliest productions
of the Venetian press and to be often reprinted up to the middle
of the seventeenth century.”? “In political theory,” Dr. Figgis
states, ‘“‘many of the mediaeval arguments and methods subsisted
until the eighteenth century.” *

The divisions of the field of knowledge, the classification of the
different subjects studied, the main interests of the human mind,
remained almost the same in early modern times as they had been
in the thirteenth century. The humanism of the intervening cen-
turies had added classical philology and antiquities, a more direct
and ampler acquaintance with Greek; the new temper of the times
and warring sects had added controversies — that was about all.
The courses offered in universities, the titles of academic chairs, the.
subject headings employed in catalogues of libraries — all these re-
mained but little altered. Lives of the saints and commentaries on
the Sentences, liturgical works and ascetic treatises were generally
abandoned by Protestants, but were still read and written by Cath-
olics. With the secularization of the Reformation period more space
in the academic curriculum was given to history and politics, but we |
must remember that mediaeval historiography had been abundant
and that Aristotle’s Politics and Economics had even been translated
into French in the fourteenth century.

1 Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), I, 266,

2 Tbid., I, 245.

* John Neville Figgis, From Gerson to Grotius, 1414-1625 (Cambridge: University Press,
1916), p. 26.

j =

—

| —

{
4

{
4,

4
4 4

4
.
—

150 Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests

Our main thesis may be excellently illustrated by the case of
Descartes, the philosopher who is commonly represented as having
made such a sharp break with mediaeval scholasticism. Yet even
his celebrated “Cogito, ergo sum,” merely repeats one of the four
states of certitude of Duns Scotus, the schoolman of the early four-
teenth century. Descartes was opposed to over-much study and
scorned the teachings of the schools. He would begin with a pre-
liminary attitude of sweeping doubt as to all previous traditions
and accepted knowledge, and then, by “the easy path” of the natural
reason possessed by almost every man, “find in himself, and without
borrowing from any, the whole knowledge which is essential to him
in the direction of his life, and then by his study succeed in acquiring
the most curious forms of knowledge that the human reason is
capable of possessing.” !

Yet we find Descartes concerned with many of the problems,
topics, and notions which had occupied the attention of the science
and philosophy of previous centuries. He employs such familiar
captions of mediaeval physics as Meteorology and Dioptrics. He
asks such an old type of question as, Why children and old people
weep more easily than others. He repeats the old notion of the for-
mation of animal spirits in the cavities of the brain. Indeed, it was
not overthrown until the time of Gall in the nineteenth century.
Descartes’ doctrine of the pineal gland in the brain as the connecting
link between soul and body reminds one of the explanation of thought
as the opening and closing of “a particle of the substance of the
brain similar to a worm,” which we find in the ninth century Arabic
treatise of Costa ben Luca, On the Difference between Soul and Spirit.’
Costa ben Luca represented this particle as forming a sort of valve
between the anterior and posterior ventricles, and held that when
a man was in the act of recalling something to mind, this valve
opened and the subtle spirits passed from the anterior to the pos-

1 The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English by Elizabeth S. Haldane
and G. R. T. Ross (Cambridge: University Press, 1911), I, 305, from The Search after Truth

by the Light of Nature.
2 Liber de differentia spiritus et animae: for editions, manuscripts, and some further account

of the treatise see my History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York: Macmillan,
1923), I, 657-659.

j
t
v
| ve
ch
| fle
rel
an
He
ma
it
phe
tion
to 1
you
stru
1
2
of Ca:

Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests 151

terior cavity. Now hear Descartes’ explanation: “Thus when the
soul desires to recollect something, this desire causes the gland, by
inclining successively to different sides, to thrust the spirits towards
different parts of the brain until they come across that part where
the traces left there by the object which we wish to recollect are
found... .”}

The magnet and the rainbow played about as large a part in
Descartes’ philosophy as in mediaeval science. To the time-honored
problem, Why is the sea not increased by the rivers flowing into it?
he gives, not the modern answer, evaporation, but the answer which
Ristoro d’Arezzo in the thirteenth century and others? since had
given, Because the surplus water returns by underground passages
to the tops of the mountains. Descartes still had faith in Aristotelian
first causes, criticizing Galileo for merely investigating particular
phenomena and forces and so building without a foundation. So
we might go on to show how Descartes denied the existence of a
vacuum, discussed such oft-discussed matters as quicksilver, sul-
phur, and bitumen, nitre and salts, how stones and minerals are
produced by vapors ascending from the interior of the earth, how
vermilion or minium is made — a stock paragraph in medieeval
chemical treatises and collections of recipes for painters, why the
flame of the candle is pointed.

Descartes of course often offered a new explanation, but the fact
remains that he was trying to answer the same old set of questions
and observing the traditional classification of the arts and sciences.
He was still as interested as the thirteenth century had been in the
marvelous secrets of nature. Although in one place he states that
it will be impossible for him to treat in detail of such matters as the
phoenix,’ he soon expresses a curiosity concerning even “ appari-
tions, illusions, and in a word all the wonderful effects attributed
to magic,” and promises to gratify it. “Then I shall place before
your eyes the works of man upon corporeal objects, and after having
struck wonder into you by the sight of machines the most powerful,

! The Philosophical Works of Descartes, 1911, I, $50, from The Passions of the Soul.

* See pp. 198-199 of my paper, “The De Constitutione Mundi of John Michael Albert

of Carrara,” The Romanic Review, XVII (1926), pp. 193 ff.
* Philosophical Works, 1911, I, 309, from The Search after Truth, cit. supra.

i
t
—
4
4
f
|
j
— =
q
f
e
q
e
th
ot
n,
{
a
|
- :

152 Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests

and automata the most rare, visions the most specious, and tricks
the most subtle that artifice can invent, I shall reveal to you secrets
which are so simple that you will henceforward wonder at nothing
in the works of our hands.” ! These words sound almost like a litera]
translation of some sentence from the treatise ascribed to Roger
Bacon “On the Secret Works of Art and Nature and the Nullity
of Magic.” Descartes was not without faith in such time-worn
marvels and ancient superstitions as the inexhaustible lamps sup-
posed to burn for centuries without addition of new fuel, or the bleed-
ing of the wounds of a corpse at the approach of the murderer.’ He
was confident that his Method could offer satisfactory explanation
of the truth of such marvels.

Finally, before taking leave of Descartes, let us recall that even
his claim to be the inventor of analytical geometry must be dis-
counted, since Nicholas Oresme had already made use of coérdinates
in the fourteenth century.’ Oresme had also employed fractional
exponents for powers,‘ an innovation formerly attributed to the
sixteenth-century mathematicians, Vieta and Stevin.

These cases illustrate the truth that not only were many intel-
lectual interests of the middle ages perpetuated in the early modern
centuries, but that what have been acclaimed as new discoveries
resulting from the free spirit of the Renaissance and the Reforma-
tion were often mere revivals of, or improvements upon, ideas which
had already been broached in the thirteenth or fourteenth century.
Duhem has traced the use made by Leonardo da Vinci in his scien-
tific thought of the previous mediaeval literature, and shown that
his geological ideas, for example, were largely taken from Albertus
Magnus in the thirteenth, and Albert of Saxony in the fourteenth
century.® Cardan was influenced in his turn by da Vinci, while
Palissy plagiarized from Cardan. Torricelli, Galileo’s private secre-

1 Philosophical Works, 1911, I, $11.

2 Principles, IV, 187: in C. Adam and P. Tannery, (Zuvres de Descartes, 12 vols., Paris:

Cerf., 1897-1910.
3 In the Tractatus latitudinum formarum, printed Padua, 1486; Venice, 1505; or the Tra

tatus de figuratione potentiarum et mensurarum difformitatum.
4 In the Algorismus proportionum, ed. Maximilian Curtze, Berlin, 1868, whose Math

matische Schriften des Nicole Oresme, Berlin, 1870, may also be consulted.
5 Pierre Duhem, Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci; ceux qu’il a lus et ceux qui V’ont lu, Paris

1906, 1909, 1913, 3 vols.

ing
a
|
-4
4 te
ki
es
: fre
pr
na
4
Ey
tre
2me
4
1995
5
|
6

Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests 153

tary and demonstrator by his famous experiment of the possibility
of a vacuum, in his dynamics often used the reasoning and even the
very wording of Jean Buridan, the Parisian schoolman of the four-
teenth century.! Gesner and Cardan made large use of Albertus
Magnus. The thirteenth-century work of Bartholomew of England
On the Properties of Things,’ intended by its author only as a handy
compilation, was the chief source of scientific information for writers
of the Elizabethan age. Mary P. Ramsay has pointed out the
mediaeval doctrines in the English poet, Donne, of the seventeenth
century.’ Knight has shown that Grotius’ work On the Law of War
and Peace covered ground already repeatedly trod by the school-
men.‘ Anatomy and physiology did not begin with Vesalius and
Harvey. Guy de Chauliac in the fourteenth century, and the earlier
writers whom he cites, possessed anatomical knowledge which has
been commonly ascribed to a later period.

Nor did the men of the later centuries always fail to recognize
the greatness of their predecessors. Gabriel Naudé in the seven-
teenth century notes that Scaliger and Cardan in the sixteenth put
Richard Suiseth or Swineshead, the “Calculator,” of the fourteenth
century, in the rank of the ten rarest wits that the world had ever
known.’ Regiomontanus has usually been represented, perhaps
especially by German historians, as having resuscitated mathematics
from the gloom and neglect of the middle ages. He was better ap-
preciated by Cardan who did not regard him as much of an origi-
nator, asserting that he had taken his Tabulae directionum in large
part from Johannes de Blanchinis of the fourteenth century, his
Epitome from a still earlier mediaeval writer of Milan, and his
treatise on Spherical Triangles from a Hebrew of Spain.*

? Duhem, op. cit., III, vii. * See Ch. 54 0f my History of Magic and Experimental Science.

* Les doctrines médiévales chez Donne, le poéte métaphysicien de V Angleterre, 1573-1631,
2me éd. (London: Oxford University Press, 1924).

* Wm. S. M. Knight, The Life and Works of Hugo Grotius (London: Sweet and Maxwell,
1925), chapter on the De iure belli et pacis.

’ G. Naudé, Instructions concerning the erecting of a library, interpreted by Jo. Evelyn
— 1661), p. 51. This translation was reprinted by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston,

* P. Gassendi, Tychonis Brahei equitis Dani astronomorum coryphaei vita. Accessit Nicolai
~ gga Peurbachit et Joannis Regiomontani astronomorum celebrium vita (Paris,

—
|
3
‘ 5 ag
e
n =
eS
al . 4
1€
j
fa
es
a-
h
at
th
ile
aris:
ree
ars
4
—
|
q
‘4

154 Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests

The mediaeval regard for such ancient authorities as Aristotle,
Galen, and Ptolemy was not diminished by the classical Renaissance

and Protestant Reformation. Sometimes the sixteenth century ,
seems guilty of a blinder adhesion to the letter of such authorities t
than had previously been the case. Duhem held that the archaic t
Italian Renaissance brought into honor again doctrines of Aristotle ‘
and Averroés which had been abandoned about 1300.' John Dry-
ander, in his 1540 edition of the Italian anatomist, Mundinus, of |
the early fourteenth century, was shocked to find that his author :
did not always follow Aristotle and Galen (as if they had always C
been in agreement among themselves!) and he presumed to correct gi
Mundinus by citing Galen.?, When Francis I in 1544 by royal edict D
condemned both of the recent works of Ramus against Aristotle and p
forbade him henceforth to attack Aristotle or other approved au- -
thors, his sympathizers held that this was an unprecedented assault H
upon academic freedom, and that it had hitherto been no crime to on
oppose Aristotle.* Henceforth, however, it was to be, at least in Ne
Paris, where as late as 1642 the Sorbonne and Parlement censured Ni
certain men for attacking the Aristotelian doctrine of form, matter, di
and substantial forms.‘ Luther for a time indulged in violent vitu- -
peration of Aristotie,® but he was much irritated when Carlstadt fn
and Melancthon took his invective literally instead of in a Pick- Ari
wickian sense. By 1535 Melancthon had seen the light and was ue
convinced that without Aristotle “pure philosophy cannot be re- wh
tained or indeed any right system of teaching or learning,” and that we
“Aristotle wrote so eruditely of civil customs that nothing more is wh
needed.” ” For a long time thereafter the Aristotelian logic, physics, on |
1 Duhem, Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci Il, v.
2 At fols. 445 and 675. Dr George Sarton suggests that Niccolé Falcucci (died 1411) may tens
have been the first author to proclaim Galen's anatomical infallibility. to
3 Audomar Talaeus, quoted in Joannis Launoii de varia Aristotelis in academia parisiens
fortuna liber (Paris, 1662), pp. 255-256. asid
4 J. de Launoy, De varia Aristotelis in academia parisiensi fortuna, 1662, p. 310. Thi:
5 Io. Heremannus ab Elswich, De varia Aristotelis in scholis Protestantium fortuna sche
diasma, 1720, pp. 20-25. be a
6 Laurentius Surius, Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum 1500-1568, 1568, p. 150. horn

7 Elswich (1720), pp. 36, 38. On the general question of the Protestant attitude to Aris
totle see further Gius. Saitta, La scolastica del secolo XVI e¢ la politica dei gesuiti (Turix:

Bocca, 1911), pp. 41-50.

4
i
‘
i
i
ig

Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests 155

and philosophy remained as firmly intrenched in most Protestant
as in Catholic schools. Even so critical a spirit as Pierre Bayle,
when he became professor of philosophy at Sedan in 1676, continued
to follow Aristotle in logic and morals, though introducing the Car-
tesian physics, while his metaphysics remained scholastic with some
attention to Cartesianism.’

The good old mediaeval teaching of dialectic received severe
punishment at the hands of Renaissance critics and satirists, but
appears to have taken it all and come back smiling. When the
Collége de Guienne was instituted in 1533 at Bordeaux, it was re-
garded as a progressive, humanistic enterprise, and Tartas, its first
principal, was represented as going south to revive learning, accom-
panied by twenty-one teachers of Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. As a
matter of fact, only one or two of them knew any Greek, while
Hebrew was never taught at the school. However, disputations
were abandoned, and the emphasis was on the Latin classics.
Nevertheless, dialectic was taught from the start, and although
Nicholas de Grouchy at first dictated his lectures in Greek, he con-
cluded by using the Latin Aristotle of Joachim Périon. The pupils
were dissatisfied with his successor in the chair of dialectic, and we
find efforts being made to secure someone qualified to comment on
Aristotle in Latin. This might sound as if good teachers of logic
were becoming scarce, but at the beginning of the next century,
when the study of Greek had been dropped from the curriculum,
we find that the principal of the school was a Scot named Balfour
whose most important work, published in 1616, was a commentary
on the Organon of Aristotle.*

Similarly in the field of medicine there was at first a marked
tendency in the late fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth century
to revert to the Greek text of Hippocrates and Galen, and to cast
aside the great Arabic medical writers of the intervening period.
This movement, however, never went very far, and was soon seen to
be an antiquarian retrogression rather than modern progress. The
normal trend of early modern medicine was rather to continue, with

1 J. Delvolvé, Essai sur Pierre Bayle (Paris, 1906), p. 29 et seq.
Ernest Gaullieur, Histoire du Collége de Guyenne, Paris, 1874.

|
ic
le oF
q
of
ct
—
It
to —
in
Tr,
dt
re-
at }
i
is
CS,
it
|
engi
150.
rin:

156 Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests

occasional innovations such as those of Paracelsus, the methods and
matter of the numerous mediaeval works and Latin translations.
Since the later mediaeval centuries had seen no little progress in
anatomy, medicine, and surgery, this situation cannot be called one
of mediaeval stagnation, although it perhaps became stagnation in
the subsequent centuries. Be that as it may, we find the candidates
for degrees or professorial appointment at Montpellier in 1574 de-
fending theses which can generally be duplicated in the works of
the Jewish physician Isaac of the tenth century or of Petrus His-
panus and Pietro d’Abano in the thirteenth.' These questions were
argued theoretically or scholastically from the usual premises of
ancient and mediaeval science and their Weltanschauung. This may
be further illustrated by quoting the forms followed by candidates
for the doctorate at Padua in 1642 and 1665 a.p., as preserved in
two manuscripts of the Sloane collection of the British Museum.

Relying on the inspiration of the divine spirit and your good will,
O most wise fathers, I enter on explanation of the points assigned me by
lot by the most illustrious presiding officer for today’s examination, in ex-
pounding which I follow the received order in this dear university and
proffer four things. First, I will show the connection of the text with what
went before. Second, I’ll expose the author’s meaning. Third, I'll divide
the text into parts. Fourth, I’ll explain the various parts and, if any matters

1 Cartulaire de ’ Université de Montpellier, ed. A. Germain, vol. II, 1912. See the Theses
of Francois Sanchez of 2-4 August, 1574, with notes of the argument jotted down by the
examiner, and the Theses of Jean Blazin of 7-9 October, 1574. Among the questions discussed
are:

Which meal should be the more frugal, dinner or supper?

Is man of hotter constitution than woman?

Is the vital faculty different from the animal?

Is respiration necessary to all animals?

Is wine or water more healthful?

Is purging or bleeding more suited to children?

Is vomiting or purging the better treatment for dysentery?

Should bread be eaten with garden fruits?

Is the flesh of poisonous animals poisonous to eat?

Is a wound from contusion properly cured by agglutinating remedies?

Are purging and bleeding good for virulent stings and bites?

Is suppuration caused by unnatural heat?

Do heavy and foetid odors help those who are suffocating?

These may be compared with questions from Petrus Hispanus and Peter of Abano, given it
my History of Magic and Experimental Science, 11, 504-505, 886-87.

|
fo
m
Mr
164
Pro

given

Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests 157

are worthy of consideration, I’ll note them too. I have to interpret a two-
fold point, one philosophical, the other medical. The philosophical is from
the second book of Aristotle’s Physics, and its opening words are: “Quasi
natura sit principium ...” The medical is from the Ars Parva of Galen,
chapter 43, opening, “Humidius autem et frigidius. . . .”

I come then to the first part of the text, in which Aristotle thus de-
fines nature, that it is the principle and cause of motion and of that rest in
which it is first and per se and not secundum accidens. Moreover, that
nature is the principle of motion and rest may be confirmed by this argu-
ment: whatever gives the essence to things, gives likewise the operations
following the essence. But nature gives things their essence, ergo etc.
The major (premise) is clear; for whatever immediately constitutes a
cause, the same also immediately constitutes the effect. The minor (pre-
mise) is proved by this reasoning. If nature is both the matter of natural
things and their form, it also gives them their essence. But the former is
true, and hence the latter also. A second argument that I adduce is that
whatever is the principle and cause of increase and alteration and pro-
gression, the same is the principle of motion and rest. But nature etc.,
ergo etc... .

In another case the candidate is assigned the problem of a youth
of hot and dry temperament laboring with intermittent fever com-
plicated by headache. His diagnosis is that the patient has a hot
and dry distemper of the heart and entire body, caused by bilious
humour putrefying outside the veins in two places. The headache
comes from bilious and putrid vapor affecting the brain. Hence the
patient requires cold and wet treatment, riddance of the putridity
and inhibition of further putrifying by means of attenuating, ab-
stergent, incident, and imminuent remedies, with cordials and liver-
pills. Hippocrates is cited to the effect that the disease is not perilous
and that a cure may be hoped for. The candidate for the doctorate
advises bleeding from the basilic vein of the right arm as much as
the patient’s constitution will permit.!

It should not be thought, however, that the observance of such
forms was necessarily incompatible with observation and experi-
ment. The very man who in 1583 had an anatomical theater con-

‘In the foregoing paragraphs I have followed the Latin text in Sloane MS. 727, fols.
4r-48r, and fol. 50r-v, Forma recitandorum punctorum et casuum in gymnasio Patavino,

1642 a.v. Essentially the same is Sloane 2880, fols. 97-115v, Methodus resolvendorum casuum
pro doctoratu in gym. Patav., 1665 a.p. Similar MSS occur in other collections.

1
nd
ns. —
in
one
1
ites
de-
of
His-
vere
of
—
may 4
ates
d in 4
will
n er
and
what
livide
atters
Theses
by the
scussed
3
¥
an

158 Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests

structed at Padua, at the same time renewed the practice of dis.
putations which had begun to flag.’

In Roman Catholic lands scholastic theology also, which has
often been represented as moribund in the fourteenth century, con-
tinued to hold its own into the eighteenth. The University of Sala-
manca was the great centre of Thomism in the sixteenth century,
There is a tradition that Duns Scotus was buried alive. Certainly
his soul went marching on in many a subsequent disputation and
tome. And as his corpse was repeatedly exhumed — in 1476, 1509,
1619, 1642, and 1706? — so his philosophy was repeatedly revived.
One such occasion was in the seventeenth century when the teaching
of two young scholars from southern Italy spread like wildfire
through all the Scotist schools. The professors of the University of
Rome from 1580 to 1690 were active in publishing works on the
philosophy and theology of Aquinas,‘ while Scotism found defenders
still in the eighteenth century.

Let us turn very briefly to yet other sides of education. In the
schools of Champagne in the second half of the sixteenth century
reckoning was still taught by the means of jetons or counters in the
mediaeval manner. The old mediaeval textbooks also continued
long in use. That meagre epitome of astronomy, the Sphere of
Sacrobosco, written in 1244, was still taught at the University of
Montpellier in 1608. The logic of Paul of Venice, who had a great
reputation as an astronomer and philosopher in the early fifteenth
century but seems to have done little more than reproduce earlier
mediaeval authors, found, according to Momigliano, a last refuge
in the schools of the Jesuits in the sixteenth and seventeenth cer-

1 See in a Venetian MS., S. Marco Ms. Lat. Classis I, cod. 106, in the dedication of Ar
tonius Riccoboni’s In Epist. Pauli ad Rom. to Laurentius Massa the following passage quoted
by Valentinelli, Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, 1868, I, 254: “qui cum ri
litterariae triumviris esset a secretis, ad res invisendas, post vacationes autumnales ani
1583 Patavium missus, de anatomico theatro construendo egit; idemque encyclicas disputs-
tiones, quae frigere coeperant, disputandi tempore atque ordine constituto, rursus excitavit
ratasque fecit.”

2 See the long article on Scotus in the Histoire Littéraire de la France, XXV, 409 et seq.
3 Ant. Mongitore, Bibliotheca Sicula (Palermo, 1708-1714), I, 112-113.

4 Gius. Caraffa, De gymnasio romano (Rome, 1751), pp. 464-477.

5 M. Poinsignon, Histoire générale de la Champagne et de la Brie, 2d ed., Chalons, 18%

1898, 3 vols.

Pp
Ce
3

Survival of Mediaeval Intellectual Interests 159

turies.' Boethius was the text in music at Oxford in the eighteenth
century. The brief compendium of the philosophy of Albertus
Magnus entitled Philosophia pauperum was being used at the Uni-
versity of Cracow in 1777.

Alchemy, astrology, and other occult sciences continued on much
the same path as they had followed in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, and men of note in science and thought still were not
above lending a favorable ear or even pen to their claims. The works
of Henry Cornelius Agrippa, Porta, and Cardan contain almost no
superstition not found in previous works. A Giordano Bruno, an
Achillini, a Bodin, a Kepler, a Francis Bacon, a Robert Boyle, all
had their little weaknesses in these matters. Such a doctrine as that
of Bodin concerning climate, instead of constituting a new modern
contribution is little more than a borrowing from mediaeval astrol-
ogy, whose last sighs have sometimes been mistaken for the first
breath of a geographical interpretation of history.

Finally, let us note that, despite the absorption of the humanists
in classical history and antiquities, there was much historical interest
in the mediaeval past manifested from the sixteenth to the eighteenth
centuries. Familiar enough to us perhaps is the appeal to history
made by Protestants and Catholics and reflected in such rival enter-
prises as the Magdeburg Centuries and the Annals of Baronius;
sufficiently familiar, too, the patriotic national histories and the
publication of royal records. But there were also numerous works
written upon the past of individual towns and localities, of univer-
sities and learned professions. At a time when centralization and
unification in a few courts and capitals took away the life and
power of the old local centres, it was natural that they should seek
solace in a review of their historic past. At a time when absolute
monarchy or foreign domination allowed few men the active exercise
of citizenship, it was not strange that much intellectual rather than
political history was written. And such works almost always convey
the impression of intellectual continuity between the mediaeval
centuries and their own times.

1 Felice Momigliano, Paolo Veneto e le correnti del pensiero religioso e filosofico nel suo
tempo (Udine, 1907), p. 125.

CotumBia UNIVERSITY.

ala-
ury
-
509, q 4
ved,
3
hing

ders

the
re of

ty
arlier

quoted
|
es antl 4
xcitavit

Ss, 1896 4

A NEST OF ANCIENT NOTAE
EDWARD KENNARD RAND

HE history of mediaeval abbreviations, sketched vividly in its
main outlines by Traube,' and supplemented with all manner
of facts and observations by Lindsay,’ will doubtless prove a fasci-
nating field for palaeographical investigation for years to come. To
study abbreviations meant formerly the mere consulting of lists and
lexicons for help in the deciphering of manuscripts. At present, we
trace a record of development that, like palaeography in general,
has acquired the character of a biological science, save that the
workings of natural law are furthered by human invention. We
start with a few ancient notae, and the symbols of sacred names,
and watch the elaboration, for which the Irish are specially to be
thanked, of an intricate system that came into ever-widening circu-
lation as the Middle Ages advanced. This statement is doubtless
too simple. At least it may lead us to imagine that scribes had re-
frained from extensive abbreviations till the Irish showed them the
way. To-day with the art of printing and all-too-much paper at our
disposal, we can save the reader’s time by spelling out the words for
him. It must have been as true in antiquity as in the Middle Ages,
when time was more and writing-material less plentiful than now,
that the latter, not the former, was matter for economy on the part
of the scribe. In that case, presumably, he would resort to symbols of
abbreviation.

It has long been known that a fairly extensive set of symbols was
employed by the writers of law-books. These symbols were therefore

1 “‘Nomina Sacra,” Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters,

II (1907).

2 Notae Latinae, An account of abbreviations in Latin MSS. of the early minuscule period
(c. 700-850), Cambridge: University Press, 1915. After this article was in type, the ad-
mirable brochure of Luigi Schiaparelli, “‘Avviamento allo Studio delle Abbreviature Latine
nel Medioevo” (Firenze: Olschki, 1926), was kindly sent to me by its learned author. Finding
the present article, to my great delight, in substantial agreement with Professor Schiaparelli’s
views, I have made no changes in it whatsoever, reserving a few points for discussion in my
review of his book, Speculum, II, (1927), 105-06.

160

q
fr’:
4
3
|
(

A Nest of Ancient Notae 161

not unnaturally called notae iuris.. But Lindsay pointed out that
they were not confined to books of law. He declares that “they
were in constant use in non-calligraphic writing, and that it is only
the loss of early writing of this kind which hides the continuity from
us.” He refers to two manuscripts as “lifting the veil” that sepa-
rates us from that early time. In either case the scribe had before
him an ancient text in which abbreviations apparently abounded.
One of these books is Milan, Ambros. C. 301, inf., a Latin transla-
tion, very possibly by St Columban, of Theodorus’ commentary on
the Psalms, probably written at Bobbio in the eighth century. The
other is a copy of St Augustine’s Letfers made in Insular, probably
Anglo-Saxon, minuscule at the monastery of St Bertin and now pre-
served at Boulogne, Bibl. Publ. 63-64. ?

Still another manuscript whose significance was first revealed by
Lindsay* is Vat. Pal. lat., 1753, which contains the Grammatica of
Marius Victorinus, and other works. This is a book of Lorsch not
later than the first half of the ninth century.‘ It was copied directly
from an original in uncials. The scribes have sometimes directly
reproduced the original symbols and sometimes just as clearly indi-
cated their presence by erroneous attempts at resolving them. Frag-
ments of the uncial writing, reproduced with careful pains because
not understood, betray the nature of the script of the original.
Lindsay uses this new clue to guide the critic through the labyrinth
of the text. He finds * nine tenths of the manuscript’s corrupt read-
ings to be misinterpretations of ancient notae, and points to the
broader bearings of his discovery. For when to the law-books we
add this grammatical work, and a commentary on the Psalms and
the letters of St Augustine, we may well suspect the presence of
abbreviations even in Classical texts. That is in fact the case in a
non-calligraphic text of certain speeches of Cicero ° and in the mar-
ginalia of well-known manuscripts of Virgil and Terence dating from

* Various lists of these are printed by H. Keil in Grammatici Latini, IV, 277-352.

? Notae Latinae (= N. L.), p. 8.

* See his paper, ““A New Clue to the Emendations of Latin Texts,” Classical Philology,
XI (1916), 270 ff.

* See his discussion of “‘The (Early) Lorsch Scriptorium,” Palaeographia Latina, II
(1924), 15. 5 Classical Philology (= C. P.), XI, 275.

® Ozyr. Pap. 1097 +1251+ Pap. greci e lat. 20; see N. L., p. 2.

162 A Nest of Ancient Notae

imperial times.! With such evidence before us we can look back
into the obscure past and be fairly confident that éditions de luze
like the Vatican Virgils give no indication of how scribes could
abbreviate in antiquity when they wished to. In less sumptuous
books, we may infer, abbreviations could be abundant.

To the sources described by Lindsay one addition can be made,
a manuscript of Tours, Bibl. Publ. 286, containing St Augustine’s De
Musica.’ I examined this book in the summer of 1925, and would
take this chance to express my gratitude to the librarian, Mons. G.
Collon for his many courtesies to me. I will add little to the account
of the manuscript given by the elder Mons. Collon in Vol. XX XVII
of the Catalogues des Départements, save to say that the script in,
my opinion, is Pre-Alcuinian, by which I mean that whatever the
exact date of the book, it illustrates the style that had prevailed
just before the arrival of Alcuin. Of course we must allow for
the possibility that the manuscript was written somewhat later
by scribes unaffected by the reform, conspicuous, for instance,
in the Bible of Bamberg, whatever may be the date of that
book. When, however, a book is the work of several scribes, as is
the case here, and shows throughout the same general tendencies, it
is more natural to think of its style as characteristic of the period
when it was written than to call it a survival of an earlier style which
had given place to some new variety. We are often asked to picture
an aged scribe or groups of scribes who could not be taught new
tricks. They doubtless existed. But most scribes were adaptable,
I imagine, and soon fell in with the new way. For instance, take the
work of almost any of the nine or ten scribes who wrote the Vatican
Livy, especially Fredegaudus, Aldo, Nauto, and Theogrimnus.’ If

1NL,p.@.
2 The photographs from which the plates were made were taken by a reputable photog-

rapher of Tours; but much to my dismay I found later, on comparing them with the mauu-
script, that no attention had been paid to my instructions to photograph each page in the
original size. Plate V (fol. 69%), by good luck, is only slightly reduced (211 X 141 mm. for
the text-space to 205 X 188 mm.) and gives a satisfactory idea of the original. The other
specimens here shown are reduced in varying amounts, as can be seen by comparing them
with Platc V. They suffice at least to exhibit che abbreviations.

3 See Rand and Howe, “‘ The Vatican Livy and the Script of Tours,” Memoirs of American
Academy in Rome, 1 (1917), 39 (on the number of the scribes) and Plates 3, 4, 7, 9, 10.

—

Puate I (A)

ied Tours, MS. 286, Fou. 13 v | @
for
ter Piate I (B)

ew lallomedo apt |
ple, €

tog
n the
a. for
other
aa

Tours, MS. 286, Fou. 20

—
d
5
=
q
{
4
q
q
a
2

A Nest of Ancient Notae 163

the director of the scriptorium should instruct these scribes merely
to do always what they already often do, — to avoid ligatures and to
practise the closed form of a,— they would all turn out a minuscule
quite the peer of that of the chief hand of the Bamberg Bible.! Had
this new principle, which I call Regular, been proclaimed, they
could have mastered it with a week’s practice. Some of the other
scribes of the Livy, particularly Ansoaldus and “Landemarus II,” ?
would have required considerably more training or even would never
have acquired the new manner. They would have been the “left-
overs,” and would have been occasionally employed for “filling in.”
It seems to me improbable that an entire book of any importance
would have been entrusted to a group of this sort. Whatever the
date at which the reform was achieved, there are no signs of
it in either the Vatican Livy or Tours 286.

MS. 286 is in the main the work of two hands, of which A writes
most of foll. 1-58 and B most of foll. 59-115. A is spelled by a third
hand, C, for a few lines on fol. 13, by a fourth, D, on fol. 54 and some
of the succeeding pages, while other scribes may have relieved B
from time to time. If the reader will compare Plates Ib and II with

a page of Fredegaudus,' he will find something very similar. Simi-
larly, Hand B suggests that of Aldo very nearly.® C is not quite
like anything in the Vatican Livy, unless it is the hand of Theo-
grimnus,° while D is nearer to that of Theodegrimus ’ than any other
of the writers of the Livy. The more I study the photographs of these
two books, the more I am impressed with the general similarity of
their style. Further comparison might well show that Aldo and

1 See Rand and Howe, op. cit., Plate 2. 2 Plates 12 and 14.

3 The reader should of course weigh the words of my friend Dom Wilmart in his bril-
liant paper in Speculum 1 (1926), 269-78. With regard to the manuscript which he dis-
cusses there, Chartres 24, 1 should be induced from the nature of the script to date the book
much nearer the end than the beginning of the abbacy of Fridugisus (804-834). On the basis
of Dom Wilmart’s calculations, Audradus would have been about fifty at the time. He was
certainly an expert scribe. The traits that incline me to put the book late rather than early
could readily have been mastered by one who had learned the Regular style when he was
considerably younger.

* See Plate 8 in the “Vatican Livy.”

5 Compare Plates IV and V with Plate 3 of the “Vatican Livy.”

5 Plate Ia; Plates 9, 10 (“V. L.”).

7 Plate III; Plates 10, 11 (“V. L.”).

|
‘ft 3
—
qa
a
q
-
i

164 A Nest of Ancient Notae

Fredegaudus were the two main scribes of 286. A glance at the
majuscules employed for headings in both books reveals a striking
sameness; particularly noticeable is a little fork, or notch, at the
base of certain letters.' I feel certain at least that the Vatican Livy
and the Tours St Augustine are both products of the scriptorium of
St Martin’s made during the period — whatever its limits — that
I call “Pre-Alcuinian.”

The text is accompanied by elaborate interlinear and marginal
glosses, comments, corrections and resolutions of the ancient sym-
bols of abbreviations which run through the manuscript. Whether
these notes are contemporary or a bit later, the scholiast had access,
I believe, to the original from which the text was copied, and it
may be that some of the glosses or variants that he introduced had
descended from antiquity. Some interpretations, and misinterpre-
tations, are his own. The abbreviations that he uses in his own
text and in his resolutions of the ancient symbols evidently repre-
sent the general usage at Tours in his day. They are what we
should expect in a continental scriptorium at the beginning of the
ninth century. I will note merely that in the abbreviation of -tur
the apostrophe-sign is invariably used.?, The work of this scholiast
should be published in complete form and his matter sifted.

I now will give a list of ancient notae of which this book is full.
This list, though doubtless not complete, is at least representative.
I began by noting only the symbols most clearly ancient, but espe-
cially after a study of the photographs at my disposal, I was led to
suspect that all or nearly all the abbreviations found in MS. 286
were also in the original; both of the chief scribes followed the ancient
text with scrupulous care. A more minute investigation of the book
is essential, but I can offer a substantially true picture of its charac-
ter. I refrain from giving page-references except in special cases; if
nothing is said, the reader may conclude that the symbol in question
is employed by both of the main writers of the book. It may also
be understood, unless otherwise stated, that all the symbols listed

1 Compare Plates Ib, I, V with 3, 4, 5 of the “Vatican Livy.”

2 In Speculum II (1927) 52-65, I have published a few notes on this and the figure-?

symbol, in an attempt to show that the latter may have been known at Tours considerably
before 820. See Lindsay, N. L., pp. 372 ff.

y
4
4
:
i
‘ke

> ;

—
5 5
yn

riod

Jnqisod yd ne b jnji9n adout aa

ne |
4
:
i
ag is :
|

A Nest of Ancient Notae 165

are regarded as notae antiquae by Lindsay, whose treatment should
be consulted in every case. I annex a star (*) to those symbols that
are never or only very rarely used by the Irish, and two stars (**) to
symbols which to the best of my observation Lindsay has not in-
cluded.

aut = a with suprascript horizontal stroke.!

autem = aut with stroke. Generally not abbreviated.

* cum = c with an apostrophe placed at the side of the letter, not above it.
See Plates II, V.

dicit = dit with stroke, fol. 112%. Lindsay’s examples are mainly from
books in Insular script (N. L., pp. 48, 51), but the symbol may also
be ancient.

dicitur = dr with stroke, fol. 112v.

** donec = don with an apostrophe at the side of the letter. Rare, but in
Hand D as well as B (foll. 54 and 78’). See Plate III, and below,
under nec.

** dum = uncial D with a cross-stroke slanting up from left to right.
Once in Hand B (fol. 60 = Plate IV). See below under the syllable um.

* enim = a capital N with an upright capital J cutting the middle of the
cross-bar. See Plate VIa.

ergo = ** erg with stroke. Once in Hand B (fol. 112”).

* est = e with stroke. Sometimes points are added before and after the
letter half way up.

esse = ee with stroke and sometimes the points as in est.

** huius = h with suprascript apostrophe. Once, in Hand B (fol. 110v).
The similar Irish symbol is h with a horizontal stroke through the top
of the shaft.

in = i with stroke. Very frequent, both as a separate preposition in com-
pound verbs and in words like deinde (fol. 60) and deinceps (fol. 69).
See Plate IV.

inter = i longa with slanting stroke.

item = it with stroke. Once in Hand B (fol. 60 = Plate IV), where the
corrector has intruded e before the following word (caput).

mihi = m with suprascript 7.

modo = m with suprascript o.

nam = capital N with horizontal stroke crossing lower prolongation of the
left-hand shaft. This symbol is used even when nam is part of a word
(unam, fol. 47%). On fol. 54 (= Plate III) we find it in guattuordenam

! Hereafter the phrase “with stroke” means “with suprascript horizontal stroke.”

|
\
if.
.
q
t
fi

166 A Nest of Ancient Notae

bymistake. The right text is guattuordena metra,' which was presumably
read by the original of the ancient manuscript, the scribe of the latter
committing a dittography which was reproduced by the text-hand of
286 and corrected by the glossator, apparently suo Marte.

** nec = n with apostrophe at the middle of the right-hand shaft. In one
case (fol. 69¥ = Plate V), the symbol for nam, erroneously used in
the ancient manuscript instead of that for non, is superscribed with
nec by the glossator. Lindsay observes (N.L., p. 132) that he has
not “‘found in any manuscript of our period . . . the ancient Nota
n’, nec.” That this symbol, with the apostrophe at the middle of the
letter rather than above, was fairly frequent in the original of 286
may perhaps be inferred from its extension to donec, q. v.

* nihil = capital N with a capital L cutting its cross-stroke and descending
below the line. Fairly frequent in Hand A, but only once, so far as
I noted in Hand B (fol. 79 = Plate VIb). The Irish symbol is nl with
horizontal stroke through the top of the I.

* nist = capital N with a capital S cutting its cross-stroke and descending
below the line. Frequent in Hand A, but apparently not in Hand B;
yet, see below, p. 172. The Irish symbol is n with suprascript 7. In
the St Bertin manuscript (Boulogne 63-64), the inserted s is ap-
parently of the minuscule shape (N.L., p. 184). Compare the following
symbol.
= ** capital N, the first shaft of which forms a ligature with a minus-
cule s. Once in Hand B (fol. 73 = Plate VIa).

nobis = nob with stroke. Fol. 113, and probably other cases which I failed
to record.

non = capital N and, less frequently, minuscule n, with stroke. This
symbol is regularly written out by the corrector, even though it is fre-
quently found in the glosses, which may well be his work. Apparently
he wished to leave no uncertainties in the text.

noster Besides the usual nri etc., we find ni with stroke (glossed nri with
stroke, fol. 115); nis with stroke (glossed nris with stroke, fol. 20 =
Plate Ib). Very possibly the briefer form was fairly frequent in the
original, the scribe replacing it by the symbol more familiar to him.
It should be remembered that Traube, whose argument is not refuted,
so far as I can see, by the new evidence amassed by Lindsay, regarded
both ni and nri as ancient, nri, in fact, being the earlier.”

nune = n with suprascript c. Often in Hand A, rare in Hand B (foll.
60, 73).

1 Sancti Aurelia Augustini .. . opera omnia . . . studio monachorum ordinis sancti Benedicti

e congregatione S. Mauri I (Paris, 1836), col. 805, C.

2 Op. cit., pp. 215-224.

—

. 4

“oh. te

A Nest of Ancient Notae 167

omnis = ois with stroke. So oi, one, ones, oes, oium, oibus, oe oia. In one
case, the symbol is written uncials (fol. 73 = Plate VIa, OIB’), thus
betraying the script of the original; see below, p. 174. The Irish were
fond of the ois, oe method, but as Lindsay points out (N.L., p. 172),
one cannot call it an exclusively Irish method, owing to the use of oa
in Lucca 490. The evidence of our manuscript seems to indicate that
it was ancient. See below, p. 174.

per = p with stroke through the shaft. The usual Irish symbol has a curv-
ing hook attached to the top of the loop.

z s = pwith apostrophe at right of middle of loop. Irish scribes

favored p with suprascript o or t, and English pt with stroke. In the
Tours manuscript the symbol is found both for the preposition and for
the syllable pos in words like possidel (fol. 27); posterior (fol. 28”);
posse (fol. 56); posset (fol. 60). See Plate IV.

prae = p with stroke.

pro = p with the loop continued in a curving stroke to the left.

propter = pp with stroke. Likewise this symbol with the ter symbol added;
see below, p. 170. Also the pro symbol with p and the ter symbol added.
Also prop with the ter symbol. These developed symbols are of course
common enough in various scriptoria of the eighth and ninth centuries,
but as all the elements are ancient, the scribe might well have found
them in his ancient codex. -

qua = g with suprascript a. Not very frequent (fol. 37%). Also in syllables
(qualis, quadruplicatis, quaternaria, fol. 49¥ = Plate II). This is a
symbol which might well have abounded in the original but was re-
solved currente calamo by the scribes of 286.

quae = q with stroke. Rare (foll. 12’, 69°).
= q with apostrophe at right of middle of loop. Rare (fol. 47"), but |
possibly a regular feature of the original. i
= q; with stroke. More frequent than the preceding. Also in syllables i
(quaedam fol. 20; quaero foll. 24; quaesitum fol. 83’). See Plate Ib.
= q with three dots. Rare (foll. 54, 60, guaed(am) fol. 79), but pos-
sibly frequent in the original. See Plates III, IV.
= q with stroke and three dots. Rare (fol. 58, quaero fol. 73 =
Plate VIa). In the last instance the symbol is embedded in a little
stretch of uncials, copied from the original text. Possibly in the original
the addition of the stroke differentiated quae from que, there being, as
usual, instances of the careless confusion of the two symbols; see N.L.,
p. 207. The same distinction is made, at times, in the Tours Eugippius
(Paris B.N. nouv. acq. lat. 1575); see N.L., p. 221. It apparently is not
common in Irish work, though g with the three dots is.

t
\
—
5
—
q
—
|
a

A Nest of Ancient Notae 167

omnis = ois with stroke. So oi, one, ones, oes, oium, oibus, oe oia. In one
case, the symbol is written uncials (fol. 73 = Plate Vla, OIB’), thus
betraying the script of the original; see below, p. 174. The Irish were
fond of the ois, oe method, but as Lindsay points out (N.L., p. 172),
one cannot call it an exclusively Irish method, owing to the use of oa
in Lucca 490. The evidence of our manuscript seems to indicate that
it was ancient. See below, p. 174.

per = p with stroke through the shaft. The usual Irish symbol has a curv-
ing hook attached to the top of the loop.

: an p with apostrophe at right of middle of loop. Irish scribes

favored p with suprascript o or t, and English pt with stroke. In the
Tours manuscript the symbol is found both for the preposition and for
the syllable pos in words like possidei (fol. 27); posterior (fol. 28%);
posse (fol. 56); posset (fol. 60). See Plate IV.

prae = p with stroke.

pro = p with the loop continued in a curving stroke to the left.

qua = q with suprascript a. Not very frequent (fol. 37%). Also in syllables
(qualis, quadruplicatis, quaternaria, fol. 49¥ = Plate II). This is a
symbol which might well have abounded in the original but was re-
solved currente calamo by the scribes of 286.

quae = q with stroke. Rare (foll. 12%, 69°).
= q with apostrophe at right of middle of loop. Rare (fol. 47%), but
possibly a regular feature of the original.
= q; with stroke. More frequent than the preceding. Also in syllables
(quaedam fol. 20; quaero foll. 24; quaesitum fol. 83"). See Plate Ib.
= q with three dots. Rare (foll. 54, 60, quaed(am) fol. 79), but pos-
sibly frequent in the original. See Plates III, IV.
= q with stroke and three dots. Rare (fol. 58, quaero fol. 73 =
Plate VIa). In the last instance the symbol is embedded in a little
stretch of uncials, copied from the original text. Possibly in the original
the addition of the stroke differentiated quae from que, there being, as
usual, instances of the careless confusion of the two symbols; see N.L.,
p. 207. The same distinction is made, at times, in the Tours Eugippius
(Paris B.N. nouv. acq. lat. 1575); see N.L., p. 221. It apparently is not
common in Irish work, though q with the three dots is.

j
|
i
inal
«-4
t
q
j
—
a
4
j
4
a

168 A Nest of Ancient Notae

m = q with cross-stroke slightly slanting up from left to right. See

Plate V.
quamquam = qq with slanting cross-stroke through both shafts. Rare

(fol. 30°).
ndo = gdo with slanting cross-stroke through the shaft of the g. Rare

(fol. 45%).

quantum = gtu with slanting cross-stroke through the shaft of the q and
stroke above u. Rare (fol. 56). -

quasi = gsi with a above q. See qua. Rare (fol. 73).

que = q; q: or g with apostrophe at right of middle of the letter (fol. 56”).

** quem = q with something like the angular “short-hand” symbol for quia,
later approaching in shape the figure 2; see N.L., p. 245. The upper
stroke is less prominent than the lower, which is capped with a fine,
short stroke; see Plate II = fol. 49%. This symbol has apparently not
been found before. On fol. 79 something has been erased after g and we
with stroke written in small letters in its place.

qui = q with suprascript 7. Used in syllables, as in the next four symbols.

quia = ga with 7 over g. Not very frequent.

= q with slanting cross-stroke through the shaft, like the symbol for

quam. Once, apparently, fol. 75. See N.L., p. 244, where this famil-
iar Irish symbol is derived from an ancient nota.

quibus = gbus with 7 over q. Rare (fol. 49%). = Plate II.

quid = qd withi over g. Rare (fol. 37’).

quidem = qd with i over q and horizontal stroke through shaft of d. See
Plate IV = fol. 60.

quo = q with suprascript o. Used in syllables, as in the following:

quoque = qq; with o above the first g. Rare (fol. 23”).

quot = gt with o above g. Rare (fol. 25).

secundum = sn with stroke. Rare (fol. 60 = Plate IV).

* sed = s minuscule with apostrophe at right of middle of the letter. See
Plates II, IV. Rare in Irish script, which generally has a stroke above
the s.

sine = sin with stroke. Rare (foll. 109, 112”). See syllabic abbreviations, ¢.

* sunt = s minuscule with stroke. The Irish symbol is st with stroke.

** tam = t with horizontal cross-stroke through middle of shaft. Not fre-
quent, but found in both hands (foll. 45°, 56, 79, 101%, 107). See
Plate VIb.

tunc = t with suprascript c. Rare (foll. 77, 111’), but see nunc.

uel = * u with stroke. Not used by the Irish. See Plate V.
= ul with stroke through upper part of J. Fairly frequent in Hand 4
but not in B. Only rarely in Irish script. The regular Irish symbol,!

—

A Nest of Ancient Notae 169

with stroke through the upper part is frequently used by the glossator
but not by the scribe of the text.

wero = u with suprascript 0. Only in Hand B.
= uo with stroke. Rare (fol. 114).

#* yerum = u With suprascript uncial m. Rare (fol. 74”), but evidently a
feature of the original, as the uncial form indicates.

* unde = und with stroke through upper part of the shaft of d. Rare (foll.
113, 114).
Syllabie Symbols
ae

sillabae = sillab with stroke through shaft of b (fol. 51). Owing to the
nature of the work, this may be merely a technical or “capricious”
abbreviation; see N.L., pp. 413 ff. Very possibly there were many of
this sort in the original.

am
dam = uncial d with cross-stroke slanting up from left to right. E.g.,

q(uae)dam (fol. 79 = Plate VIb) ; quadam (fol. 108) ; quibusdam (fol. 108).
In gquasdam (fol. 108) the minuscule d is used. In general, the scribe
reproduces the uncial form found in the original.
nam See above, under Nam.
con = c with the apostrophe at the side, as in cum. Rare (fol. 32, conueniat).
The continental symbol, ¢ with stroke is rarely found (fol. 28, conlo-
catur; fol. 108%, congruentia). The Irish symbol, the reversed ¢ does
not appear.
ne = n with stroke. Only in Hand B (fol. 110, homine; fol. 112*, lumine;
fol. 114, consuetudine, longitudine). See sin, above. See N.L., p. 329.
nte = Nt with stroke. Fol. 110, peccaNie (N ss. m1) homin(e).
em
dem = d with stroke through shaft. Rare (fol. 60 = Plate IV, g(ui)dem.)
tem = t with stroke. Frequent in the different cases of tempus (see Plates
II, IV). This may well be considered a “technical” abbreviation. But
also in contemplatione, contempla(tio) ; fol. 113°.
en
cen = c with stroke. Rare (fol. 31, wicensim(us).
** len = l with subscript dot. With the apostrophe-symbol for tio (q.v.); fol.
47, silentio.
= 1 with subscript stroke combined with the apostrophe-symbol to
form silentio (sillentio, sylentio); fol. 47%, 49%, 56, 58, 60. See Plates
II, IV.
= 1 with subscript stroke and dot. Fol. 47%, sil(en)du(m).
= | with two subscript strokes. With the tio-symbol, fol. 54; sil(entio).

xs
j
ii
a
t
a
a

170 A Nest of Ancient Notae

See Plate III. This symbol, which is a regular feature of all parts of
the book, should perhaps be rated as a technical abbreviation.
men = m with stroke; fol. 112%, lumen. This ancient symbol, says Lind.
say (N.L., p. 331), was adopted in all countries except Spain and the
British Isles.
** ren = majuscule R followed by either a point or a stroke. Fol. 73 =
Plate Via, ABORR- DO ( = abhorrendo). The uncial traces show that
| the scribe copied what he found in the original. Fol. 79 = Plate VIb,
nutrirentur.
** ten = t with stroke at the base, slightly sloping up from left to right.
Fol. 73 = Plate VIb, senteniiam; fol. 108, attendit.
Lindsay has instances of symbols for cen, gen, hen, men, nen, but not
for len, ren, ten.

in
cer = ** ¢ followed by apostrophe at middle of letter. Fol. 37”, certis;

fol. 49” = Plate II, certo.

c with stroke. Foll. 37%, certum; fol. 108, cerie; fol. 48°, cernatur.
ser = s minuscule with stroke. Fol. 56%, praesertim.

s minuscule with a stroke slightly slanting up from left to right through

the straight shaft. Fol. 56, sermone. This is found in a few of Lind-

say’s manuscripts, the St Bertin Augustine included; see N.L., p. 336.
ter = ¢ with stroke through the shaft. I see no essential difference be-
tween this symbol (fol. 56) and that for tam, g.v. With the tio-sym-
bol in tertio (fol. 58). This ancient nota was replaced by ¢ witb stroke,
which is frequent in our manuscript; e.g., aliter (fol. 20 = Plate Ib).
Lindsay cites symbols for ber, fer, ger, ner, none of which I noted in
Tours 286.

es
des = d with stroke through the shaft. Fol. 58, pedes. Possibly a capri-

cious or technical abbreviation.

m = a stroke above a vowel. Frequent. Also used in the middle of words
far more freely than one would expect in this period. E.g., fol. 58,
ia(m)bum; fol. 60 = Plate IV, ani(m)aduertis.

n
in =i with stroke. See under the preposition in.

tra = t with suprascript a. Rare (fol. 48’, 69” (= Plate V), ultra.

ri
pri = p with suprascript 7. Frequent. Primus constantly.
tri = i with suprascript 7. Frequent. E.g., fol. 54 = Plate III, éribra-
chium; fol. 60 = Plate IV, triplici. The frequency of both symbols
(pri and tri) is partly caused by the nature of the subject.

PLatTEe V

—

| |

|
'
“=

A Nest of Ancient Notae 171

#* tio = a semi-circle or apostrophe at the middle of the letter. Not found
in Lindsay’s manuscripts (N.L., p. 358). In our manuscript it is found
in all parts in combination with the len-symbol, q.v. It is rarely used
for other words in Hand 4; fol. 58, conpara(tio)ne, sen(tio). Hand B
is rather lavish in the use of this symbol, which may well have been a
constant feature of the original. Uncial traces are conspicuous on fol.
77. Examples: electione, fol. 69 = Plate V; distributione, fol. 77;
ATTENTIONES ACTIONES, fol. 77; actionibus, fol. 77; operationes,
fol. 77; ratione, foll. 78, 83°; rationis, fol. 107%; delectione, fol. 108;
silentiorum, fol. 109; ratio, fol. 109; actiones, fol. 112%; contemplatio,
sanctificatio, fol. 113.

um
See the abbreviations discussed in N.L., p. 358 ff.

rum = r with suprascript apostrophe. A few instances are found in
Hand B (aeternarum, fol. 112; peccatorum, fol. 113; dworum, fol. 115).
The apostrophe seems to have stood a bit to the right of R in the an-
cient manuscript.
= R (r) with stroke, probably a bit at the right of the letter. Fol.
60 = Plate IV, quorum; fol. 73 = Plate VIa, hoRum. Note the uncial
R and the fact that u is obviously a later addition. This symbol was
adopted by the Irish; see N.L., p. 367.
un (une) = an apostrophe at the side of the letter. Fol. 53”, c,ntag; (?).
unt
runt = r with suprascript apostrophe. Rare (fol. 23%, caueruni; fol. 30,
cecinerunt).
= R(r) with suprascript stroke, which apparently stood a bit to the
right of the letter. Fol. 60 = Plate IV, erunt; fol. 77, cesseRunt.
Both symbols may have been used in the original. Cf. um.
tur = t with suprascript apostrophe, an ancient nota; see N.L., p. $72.
Often. Futa with stroke above t for futura (it should be futuram) may
be a capricious abbreviation (fol. 112”).
us
bus = b; This is an ancient nota; see N.L., pp. 228, 382. The u is also
suprascript between b and s (auribus, fol. 113’). This, too, is an ancient
practice, though no abbreviation is involved. ome
dus = d with cross-stroke through the shaft. Rare (fol. 114, modus). i a
ius = i followed by an apostrophe. Rare (fol. 11, cuiusd(am); i with i 4
suprascript apostrophe. Rare (fol. 8, eius).
mus = m followed by an apostrophe. Rare (fol. 31, vic(en)simus; fol.
33°, primus).

i
oe
aan
=
= Gar
|
}
ia

172 A Nest of Ancient Notae

m with suprascript apostrophe. Rare (fol. 7 ignoramus; fol. 111,
accipimus; fol. 112% widebimus).

nus = n with suprascript apostrophe. Rare (fol. 54 = Plate IV, magnus),
Note that this word occurs in a passage written in a smaller — though
I think not different — hand. The scribe has omitted something, mis.
led by homoiteleuta, and erasing part of what he had written crowded
in all that he should have written at first. Naturally he resorted to all
the devices at his command. Fol. 113", bonus with this symbol is ap.
parently the work of Hand B.

pus = p with apostrophe at side of the letter. Rare (fol. 35, opus).

Nomina Sacra

Here there is nothing important to record. The divine names
occur, even in this technical treatise, and specimens may be seen
on Plate V (= fol. 69"). An erasure will be seen after n in dno,
possibly indicating that dmo was used in the ancient book.

On the errors made by the scribes in copying the symbols of the
old manuscript my notes do not throw much light. A collation of
the entire text would presumably be instructive on this point, par-
ticularly as the manuscripts used in the Benedictine edition seem to
preserve a reliable tradition and therefore afford a criterion of what
the correct reading is in the vast majority of cases. Without going
into details, I will say merely that MS. 286 clears up some of the
errors in the Benedictine text and itself commits some which that
text corrects. In the matter of abbreviations, an error in 286 like
sunt corrected to sed (fol. 35) shows that the scribe had the ancient
nota for sed before him; in many cases, it is copied exactly as it was
found. Hand A frequently writes nist which is corrected to enim,
and a few such instances occur in Hand B.1 Apparently in the
original the symbols for enim and nisi had a similar cross-stroke
through the uncial N, or perhaps the ancient scribe had himself
carelessly replaced the former symbol by the latter. Similarly, nihil
is wrongly used for enim on fol. 79 = Plate VIb. In general it
would appear from the data at my disposal that the scribes of 26
followed the original scrupulously and that many or most of the
errors due to the misinterpretation of symbols had already beet

1 For an example, see fol. 60 = Plate IV.

i
|
P
+.
—
ioe
q }
4
| uf?
|
é
f Tt,
:
F 4 J
4,

Puate VI (A)

Tours, MS. 286, Fou. 73

Piate VI (B)

Tours, MS. 286, Fou. 79

|
q quid maxine- lexcellac. - AG 4
|
0
at
il

A Nest of Ancient Notae 173

made in the ancient manuscript. The corrector, it would seem,
depended for his revision not only on that book but perhaps on
some other text besides, and, surely, on his own wits.

Pending a more minute examination of the manuscript of Tours,
which I hope that somebody may be inspired to undertake, we may
at least be sure that the book from which it was copied was full of
ancient notae. The two main hands of 286, while differing in their
method of reproducing these symbols, agree at so many points that
I think we may feel tolerably certain that the original before them
preserved a certain system throughout its text and therefore certain
symbols which are found in Hand A but not in Hand B, or vice versa,
were probably characteristic of all parts of the original. The lists
given above are only tentative. It may well prove that certain
symbols which I have designated as rare are found more plentifully
in our manuscript than I have noted. At all events, the material
here presented is enough to justify the title of this paper, “A Nest
of Ancient Notae.”

I call these symbols ancient rather than Insular, because of the
infrequency of the symbols that, with Lindsay’s help, we have
learned to regard as characteristically Insular. 1 append a list of
the symbols so classed in Notae Latinae (pp. 496 ff.) that do not, so
far as I could observe, appear in our manuscript.

ante = an with stroke. et = the figure-7 symbol.

apud = ap with stroke. etiam = eti with stroke.

autem = h with appended apostro- _filius =fls with cross-stroke through /.
phe; at with stroke. haec = hwith stroke above shoulder.

bene = b with stroke through the homo = hwitho at right of shoulder;
shaft. ho with stroke.

contra = the reversed c with cross- meus = ms with stroke.
stroke; the reversed cc, etc. nihil = nl with cross-stroke.

cuius = cs with stroke. nist = n with suprascript 7.

cum = ¢ with stroke or followed by nobis = nb with cross-stroke.
figure 7. nomen = no with stroke.

eius = the reversed epsilon. pater = pr with stroke.

enm = the H symbol. per = p with appended apostrophe.

ego = eg, er with stroke; g with su- post = p with suprascript o or 1¢;
prascript o. pt with stroke.

est = + quando = qn, qno, with stroke.

|
|
a
4
= 4
ia
|
}
} 2
4
4

174 A Nest of Ancient Notae

quantum = qnm with stroke. sine = sn with stroke.
quare = qre with stroke. sive = su with stroke.
quasi = qsi with stroke. sunt = st with stroke.

° que = q with appended 3. super = sr with stroke.
quem = qm, q with stroke. tamen = tn with stroke.

quia = q with slanting cross-stroke tantum = tm with stroke.
through shaft. The one possible trans = trs, ts with stroke.
instance noted above, p. 168,is uel = 1 with cross-stroke.

most uncertain. unde = un with stroke.
quippe = gp, gpe with stroke. ut = u with stroke, u with supra-
quod =q with curving stroke through script apostrophe.

shaft.
quomodo = qmo with stroke. Syllabic Abbreviations
quoniam = qm with stroke. con = the reversed c

us = the 3-symbol, as in b(us), ete.

quoque = qq with stroke.
quot = gt with stroke.
secundum = minuscule s with cross- Nomina Sacra

stroke. Final c (Greek sigma) in the symbols
sed = s with stroke. for Christus (xpe, with stroke), Jesus
sicut = s with suprascript i or (ihe, with stroke), and Spiritus (spe
(rare) t. with stroke).

This is an imposing array. Conversely, the reader will find in
my first list (pp. 165 ff.), nine symbols, singly starred, which contra-
vene the Insular practice, and twelve symbols, doubly starred, which,
to the best of my observation, Lindsay has not recorded at all. The
character of this evidence warrants the conclusion that in the very
few cases where a symbol plausibly regarded as specifically Insular
occurs, we may now say that the symbol was not invented by the
Irish but was drawn from an ancient source; see under omnis, quae,
dictt.

A study of the scribal errors of 286, so far as this is permitted by
my material, points in the same direction. When we note anarestus
for anapestus (fol. 108) and erret for esset (fol. 4), we are tempted to
think of an original in the Insular hand. A glance at the errors
gathered by Ribbeck from the majuscule manuscripts of Virgil,
should give us pause. His lists should more often be consulted when
we suspect an Insular or a Visigothic or a Beneventan source for

1 Prolegomena Critica ad P. Vergili Maronis Opera Maiora (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 252 f.

3
so
th
ins
cot
cor
a
| anc
boc
| and
the
: secc
ferre
(I
f
only
St B
musi
d our |
large
(3
the e
quair
bols
writt
and
4 | Caroli
princi
: manus

A Nest of Ancient Notae 175

some mediaeval text, for unless the “symptoms” of Ireland or Spain
or Monte Cassino exist in profusion, we have no right to infer that
the style of any one of these centres lies behind the script under
inspection.’ Rinu for pinu, perendit for pependit, rensa for pensa —
“Aha!” we cry, “Insular original!” But slowly — these examples
come from the Palatinus of Virgil, which also shows not a few
confusions of R and S. Similarly, we have no right to suspect
a Spanish origin for our manuscript, just because of the appear-
ance of quur (fol. 60 = Plate IV) and quum (foll. 73, 77, 79).

But no long parley is needed in the matter of the script of the
book from which 286 was copied. One has only to consider the in-
stances of uncial remnants in various of the symbols discussed above
and to turn at once to Plate Vla (= fol. 73), to be certain first that
the scribe is struggling with an original in continuous script and
second that this script was uncial.

Several conclusions may be drawn, or several possibilities in-
ferred, from the new data before us.

(1) As to the history of abbreviations, here is a new link in the
chain of continuity from ancient to mediaeval times.

(2) Symbols of abbreviations were employed in antiquity not
only in books of law and grammar, but, as in the manuscript of
St Bertin, in a work of St Augustine. True, the subject is technical;
music, like grammar, is a member of the quadrivium, but at least
our knowledge of the scope of ancient abbreviations has been en-
larged.

(3) It may be that various Continental scriptoria at the end of
the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century were better ac-
quainted with symbols of abbreviation in general and ancient sym-
bols in particular than has been imagined. Here is a book of Tours
written just before Alcuin or during his régime or not long after it,
and copied directly from an ancient and much abbreviated original.

(4) It follows that the avoidance of abbreviations in the early
Carolingian books may have sprung not from ignorance but from
principle. In some cases, then, we should be wary about dating a
manuscript late in the ninth century just because it is full of abbre-

? See Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XX XVII (1926), 35 f.

4
a
a
4
2
'
q
4

176 A Nest of Ancient Notae

viations. Turn for instance to Plate VIb and note the symbols with
which the lines here shown are cluttered. In the series of words
non quia isia in nobis omnino non, five of the seven are abbreviated;
in the series non nihil aliler aut every word contains an abbreviation,
This is not the usual method of the scribes of St Martin’s at the
time MS. 286 was written! Ordinarily, a manuscript so thickly
abbreviated would be relegated to the close of the ninth century
or thrust out of it into the tenth —a criterion that in the case
of our book would lead to an error of about a hundred years.
Such cases are doubtless exceptional. It would seem true as before
that in general the more abundant use of abbreviations was due to
the Insular influence that in many ways operated powerfully towards
the close of the ninth century.

(5) As to the Irish themselves, we may have to ascribe to them
less invention — and a wider acquaintance with ancient sources
and with ancient styles of script. The original of Tours 286, like
that of the Lorsch manuscript discussed by Lindsay, was a codex
in uncials. Were not the Irish familiar with such in their own coun-
try? How much longer may we continue to say that Irish script

developed solely from the half-uncial? For further light on the
subject we may look to renewed study of the history of abbrevia-
tions, which also may well have a bearing on a problem of larger
scope — the history of ancient culture in Ireland from the end of
the Roman Empire to the Carolingian Renaissance.

Harvarp UNIVERSITY.

4
:
t
q
j
i]
E

CHAUCER’S HELL:
A STUDY IN MEDIAEVAL CONVENTION

By THEODORE SPENCER

URING the past hundred and fifty years, beginning with
Tyrwhitt’s edition of the Canterbury Tales, a considerable
amount of effort (largely misdirected) has been expended in pointing
out parallels between Chaucer and Dante. The House of Fame is
said to have been based upon the plan of the Divine Comedy; in-
numerable resemblances to Dante have been detected (or imagined)
throughout Chaucer’s work; and, most trying of all, the common
employment by both Chaucer and Dante of the same conventional
phrases has been interpreted as the borrowing of one poet from the
other.

It is the consideration of these errors which has prompted a
study of Chaucer’s conception of hell. The purpose of the present
paper is to show that this conception— far from being largely Dan-
tesque, or, indeed, borrowed from any individual writer — is, with
one or two trifling exceptions, entirely dependent on the convention
of infernal description which was prevalent in Chaucer’s day.

About such a convention Chaucer, naturally enough, says
nothing. On the contrary he twice mentions his authorities for hell
explicitly. The devil in the Friar’s Tale promises the Sumner, his
companion, that he, by his “owene experience”’ will be able to tell
about what goes on there

Bet than Virgyle, why] he was on lyve,
Or Dant also.?

And in the House of Fame, Claudian’s name is added.* Now if we

1 For the demolition of this grotesque notion, see W. O. Sypherd, Studies in Chaucer’s
Hous of Fame, Chaucer Society, London, 1907. 2 C. T., D 1519-20.
* Chaucer, giving us an outline of the adventures of Aeneas, says:
And every tourment eek in helle
Saw he, which is long to telle.
Which who-so willeth for to knowe,
He moste rede many a rowe
On Virgile or on Claudian
Or Daunte that hit telle can. (vv. 445-450.)

177

i o
ds
d;
n.
he
ly
ry
se
rs.
re
to
ds 4
ike
lex
in-
ipt a
the
per
of
j
=

178 Chaucer’s Hell

could only take Chaucer at his word, it would be simple enough to
collect all his infernal references and trace them back to these three
sources. Our problem would then resolve itself into assigning to
Virgil, Claudian, and Dante, their legitimate shares in Chaucer's
mind. But the problem is not so simple; for there were other descrip-
tions of hell (not quite so literary as these) about which Chaucer is
silent, but which played, nevertheless, an important part in influenc-
ing his opinions: the visions of mediaeval travellers to the other
world.

These visions were both numerous and popular. “Dans |’Europe
du xur‘ et du x1v° siécle,” says Le Braz, “la fortune de ces récits
étranges fut presque aussi grande que celle des romans gallois.”!
Their history is a long one,? but it was not till the twelfth century
that they reached the climax of their favor. From that period date
the two descriptions of the other world which were by far the most
popular during the following three hundred years: the vision of
Tundale, and the adventures of Sir Owayn in St Patrick’s Purgatory:
It is difficult to overestimate their prevalence.‘ The descriptions

given by Tundale and Owayn of the purgatorial flames, the fumes
of sulphur, the countless tortures, the nameless and terrible beasts
which tease the unfortunate souls in hell, seem to have seized the
popular imagination. Indeed it is difficult to conceive how anyone
living in fourteenth-century England could have escaped their influ-
ence. The adventures of Owayn, for example, were incorporated

1 A. Le Braz, La Légende de la Mort chez les Bretons Armoricains (Paris, 1902), I, xxvii.

2 Plato ends his Republic with an account of the vision of Er the Pamphylian; Cicero, fol
lowing Plato’s example, concludes his De Republica with the dream of Scipio; Plutarch in his
Treatise on the delay of Divine Justice, introduces the detailed vision of Thespasius. Descrip-
tions of heaven and hell appear in the apocryphal gospels, and they were used with increasing
frequency and effectiveness throughout the first Christian millennium. For example, Bede in
his Ecclesiastical History (iii, 19 and v, 12) gives an account of two visions of the other world,
one by St Fursa, another by the monk Drihthelm. We have the Visio Pauli, the vision of
Charles the Fat (William of Malmesbury, ii, 111), the revelation of the Monk of Eynsham, and
many others. See E. J. Becker, Mediaeval Visions of Heaven and Hell, Baltimore, 1899.

3 Tundale is said to have enjoyed his vision in 1149; Owayn in 1158.

« There are fifty-four Latin MSS alone of Tundale’s vision (Cf. A. Wagner, Visio Tungdali,
Erlangen, 1882) extending from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries — and his account was
translated into French, German, English, Italian, Irish, and Icelandic. Owayn’s adventures
in St Patrick’s Purgatory had an almost equal popularity. In this case, too, we are confronted
with a large number of MSS in Latin, French, and English. Cf. E. J. Becker, op. cit., pp. 81 fi

g i]

Chaucer’s Hell 179

into the great South English Legendary and used on the feast day
of St Patrick, March 17.1 They must have been very effective when
used in the pulpit, and we may be fairly sure that Tundale’s vivid
and horrible description was employed in the same way.

Unfortunately I have neither the space nor the occasion to dis-
cuss these visions — nor the others: those of Paul, Thurcill, Alberic,
et cetera, which bear so close a resemblance to them. All that it is
necessary to point out at the moment, is that these visions existed,
that they were extraordinarily popular in the fourteenth century,
and that they largely resemble each other in their images and vocab-
ulary. They created, so to speak, a kind of hellish convention, in
image and phraseology. And with this convention Chaucer, as we
shall see, was thoroughly familiar.’

Chaucer mentions hell in connection with a distinguishing feature
of that locality, some forty-seven times, but none of these references,
with two exceptions, are either very lengthy or explicit; they extend
to the length of only two or three lines apiece. One exception is the
description of the future lot of friars, which the Sumner gives with
so much relish.* We shall discuss this later. The other is the Parson’s

discourse on the “horrible peynes of helle”;‘ and since this is in
a different class from Chaucer’s other accounts of the infernal
regions, we will not include it in our discussion.’ It is a piece of
conscious patch work; the references to hell do not spring uncon-

1 See C. Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden, Paderborn, 1875, and the same editor’s Early
South English Legendary, E.E.T:S. orig. ser., no. 87, pp. 199 ff.

? In the following pages, when referring to any of these visions, I have cited the editions
used. In the case of St Patrick’s Purgatory, I have referred to the English version edited by
Horstmann (Early South English Legendary, pp. 199 ff.). Since there is unfortunately no edi-
tion of the English vision of Tundale based on a MS. earlier than the fifteenth century, I have
referred to the French version which dates from the thirteenth century (La Vision de Tondale,
textes francais, anglo-normand et irlandais, ed. V. H. Friedel and K. Meyer, Paris, 1907).

C.T., D 1685-1706.

C.T., I 157-230.

5 The Parson speaks of the “‘put of helle” and its devils (169-170), he calls it a “‘lond of
darkness” (181); he mentions the infernal fire (183), the torments (188 ff.) and the pain.
Chaucer’s authorities for this picture, according to Skeat (Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, Oxford,
1900, V, 450-52), include The Epistle to the Romans, St Bernard, The Proverbs, St Anselm, St
Jerome, Job, Samuel, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Micah, The Psalms, Matthew, St Gregory, and St
Basi]. In other words, it is nothing but a crazy-quilt of quotation; and Chaucer is fully con-
scious that this is the case, for to nearly every remark he adds the name of its original author.

a
to
ree
to
1's
4
is
nc-
her
ope
cits
ury
ate
ost }
of
3
ry:
f
ons
mes
the
‘one
ated
0, fol
Sscrip- a
ade in
world,
ion of
nt was “3
ntures
ronted
{

180 Chaucer’s Hell

sciously from the bottom of Chaucer’s mind. Consequently this pas-
sage is far less interesting than the other forty-six, which (except for
the vague mention of Virgil, Claudian and Dante) have no label
attached to them to tell whence they came. Chaucer probably
did not know himself.

We may divide these references to hell into three categories:
those which hint at the geography of hell, those which mention its
inhabitants, and those which tell of hellish events.

INFERNAL GEOGRAPHY

As regards infernal geography, Chaucer is not very explicit. He
speaks once of the “swolow of hell,” and three times of the “put
[pit] of helle.” ? The description of hell as a “swolow” (gulf), is
used as a figure to contrast Aeneas’ entertainment by Dido with his

past misfortunes:
This Aeneas is come to Paradys
Out of the swolow of helle.?

Now it has been suggested * that this conception of hell comes from
the Inferno. Dante, referring to hell, speaks of the tristo buco‘
and della valle d’abisso dolorosa.*® It is barely possible that this pas-
sage was in Chaucer’s mind, but since it is so closely connected with
his conception of hell as a “pit,” let us suspend our judgment for
a moment. Elsewhere Chaucer describes the dwelling of Morpheus

as a cave
as dark

As helle-pit over-al aboute; ®

the black trumpet of Eolus, in the House of Fame (v. 1654), “stank
as the pit of helle”; and Criseyde, swearing her fidelity to Troilus,
prays, if she proves false, that

Saturnes doughter, Juno, thorugh hire myght,
As wood as Athamante do me dwelle
Eternalich in Stix, the put of helle. (iv, 1538-40.)

1 Leg., 1103-1104. 2 Troil., iv, 1540 (ed. Root); B. of D., 171; H.F. 1654.
See Skeat’s note to Leg., 1104.
Inf., xxiii, 2. 5 iv, 8. * B. of D., 171.

—
|
is
§

us,

Chaucer’s Hell 181

Now in Virgil and Claudian hell is not regarded as a pit; it is rather
an underground plain. Thus Dante’s conception is closer to Chau-
cer’s than that of Virgil and Claudian, and, if we were limited to the
three authors Chaucer mentions as his authorities, we should be
forced to consider these references as reminiscences of Dante. There
were other descriptions of hell, however. Even as early as Job we
find the exhortation: ' “Deliver him from going down to the pit.”
The phrase occurs in Piers Plowman; “I shall punisshen in purcatory
or in the put of helle.”’ ?. And in practically all the mediaeval visions,
hell is described as a pit.* Drihthelm ‘ in the seventh century (while
in the other world) saw things like globes of dusky flame, which rose
from a great pit and which were full of agonized souls, tossed up
from the stinking depths of hell. Tundale also saw hell as a pit,
with Satan at the bottom of it, as we shall see. And the phrase the
“put of helle” is a favourite one with the English author of St Pat-
rick’s Purgatory, where in twenty lines (vv. 357-377) hell is spoken
of eight times as a “‘put.”” Examples from the visions could be mul-
tiplied almost indefinitely. Indeed the Middle Ages rarely thought
of hell as anything else, and we cannot say that Chaucer’s descrip-
tion of it as such or as a “swolow”’ comes from Dante alone. And
it is equally doubtful if he was thinking of Dante’s description of
Styx as una palude . . . che ha nome stige * (as has been suggested °)
when he called Styx the “put of helle”; for a marsh and a pit are
not, after all, quite the same thing.’ It is far more likely that, when
Chaucer spoke of Styx, he meant hell as a whole, and not any par-
ticular part of it.*

The other references to infernal geography give us no more defi-
nite impression. Chaucer speaks once of “‘Flegiton, the fiery flood
of helle,” ° once of Styx (as we have seen), and once of “‘Lete, that

1 Job, xxxiii, 24. 2 Ed. Skeat, A, xi, 248.
* Cf. Miss Stanford, art. cit. infra., p. 381, n. 14.
‘ Bede, Eccles. Hist., v, 12. 5 Inf., vii, 106.

5 J. L. Lowes, “Chaucer and Dante,” Mod. Phil., XIV (1917), 705-35.

7 And besides Chaucer never refers to hell as a marsh (Virgil’s tenebrosa palus and the
enferne palu of Old-French tradition).

* So Claudian (De Raptu, ii, 34), speaks of Cerberus as Stygii . . . canis, when Cerberus
is the guardian of all hell rather than of the river only. He speaks similarly of Pluto (ii, 264):
Stygio ducor . . . tyranno — the tyrant, not so much of Styx, as of hell as a whole.

® Troil., iii, 1600.

|
4,
it
iS
.
1S
vag
m
4
)
or
us
nk
=
t
|
|
i.

182 Chaucer’s Hell

is a flood of helle unswete.” + Phlegethon is mentioned casually
by both Virgil and Claudian;? but the picture of that river as a
“fiery flood” was too common a classical convention to enable us
to decide which of them Chaucer was thinking of.

However, the reference to Lethe as a “flood of helle unswete” can
be more definitely traced to Claudian’s line,

Stagnaque tranquillae . . . marcida Lethes; *

“the rotting pools of sluggish Lethe”— a description close enough
to Chaucer’s. In this case, then, if we consider only Virgil, Dante,
and Claudian as the competitors for Chaucer’s source, it is clear
that the honor is Claudian’s.

There is one further reference to hellish geography. Criseyde, in
a passage we shall have occasion to refer to again, promises Troilus,
when they are parting, that

in the feld of pite, out of peyne,
That hight Elisos, shal we be yfeere.*

And this description of the Elysian fields, as Mr Tatlock has ob-

served,’ seems to be a reminiscence of Dante’s Limbo,*— a field of
sighing outside the “peyne of helle”— rather than of Virgil’s “locos
laetos et amoena virecta.”" At any rate it has no counterpart in

Claudian.
So much for the meagre hints which Chaucer gives us for his

picture of the appearance of hell. It is a pit containing three rivers
and neighboring the Elysian fields. The rivers have their springs in

1 ALF., 71-72.
2 Virgil speaks of the vast Tartarean prisons,
Quae rapidae flammis ambit torrentibus amnis
Tartareus Phlegethon (Aen., vi, 550-51)
and Claudian:
Adsurgit Phlegethon: flagtantibus hispida rivis
barba madet totoque fluunt incendia vultu (De Raptu, ii, 315-16).

3 De Raptu, i,282. It certainly does not come from Dante; for Lethe in the Divine Comedy
is one of the streams in the Earthly Paradise. Virgil also speaks of this river favorably. It
flows through the Elysian fields: Lethaeumque domos placidas qui praenatat amnum (Aen,
vi, 705). 4 Troil., iv, 789-790.

5 Mod. Lang. Notes, XX1X (1914), 97.

6 Inf., iv, and esp. verse 26; “‘non avea pianto, ma’ che di sospiri.”

Aen., vi, 638.

| a

| Chi

Aen

| plac

(

| ]

king,

idle ;

(

Chaucer’s Hell 183

the classics, the pit is the common property of all mediaeval descrip-
tions of hell, Elysos grows from a recollection of Virgil’s name com-
bined with a reminiscence of Dante’s description of Limbo. We have
then a complicated mixture of impressions, some from the classics,
one from mediaeval phraseology, and one largely from Dante.

INHABITANTS OF HELL

The same diversity appears when we consider Chaucer’s remarks
about the inhabitants of hell. To several of these it is impossible to
assign a definite source. He speaks of being “‘as deepe . . . in helle
as Tantalus”’;1 Ticius,? and “Cerberus in helle”* are mentioned;
the peyne of Sesiphus is referred to,‘ and we are told that Troilus,
when Criseyde has departed, goes to bed

and walwith ther and torneth
In furie, as doth he, Jzion, in helle.§

But since the punishment of Tantalus, Sisyphus, Tityos, and Ixion,
as well as the existence of Cerberus, are the commonplaces of the
classical descriptions of hell, we can assign no definite source for
them.® Pluto, in his character of king of hell, has an equally vague
provenance. Chaucer mentions him three times, but in no case with
sufficient detail to permit identification with a specific source.’

1 Troil., iii, 592-93.
3 Ticius, in helle,

Whos stomak foughles tiren evere mo

That highten volturis, as bokes telle (Troil., i, 786-88.).

* Troil, i, 859. 4 B. of D., 567 ff. 5 Troil., v, 211-12.

§ All these (except Sisyphus) are mentioned in Boethius, iii, met. 12, and, for all we know,
Chaucer may have been thinking of no other passage. But he could have found Tityos in
Aeneid, vi, 595, or in De Raptu, ii, $82 ff.; Tantalus in De Raptu, ii, $32 ff., Ixion in the same
place and in Aen., vi, 601, and Cerberus in Claudian, Virgil, Ovid, Dante, etc.

7 These are:

Troil., iii, 592-598; ‘With Pluto kyng as depe ben in helle / As Tantalus.”

C.T., F 1073-74: Into her [Proserpine’s] owene derke regioun Under the ground, ther

Pluto dwelleth inne.

C.T., A 2082: Ther Pluto hath his derke regioun.

It is possible, since Claudian speaks far more than any one else about Pluto as hell’s
king, that Chaucer had the De Raptu in mind when writing these passages. But this is an
idle assumption.

Chaucer’s other mention of Pluto as the “king of fayerye,” in the Merchant's Tale
(E 2225 ff.) is an interesting example of a not uncommon mediaeval confusion between fairy-

=
|

;
d

184 Chaucer’s Hell

Chaucer’s phraseology in connection with Proserpine may have,
however, a firmer anchoring place. Troilus is telling Pandar of the
lasting quality of his love for Criseyde. He says:

But fro my soule shal Criseydes darte

Out nevere mo; but down with Proserpyne,
Whan I am dede, I wol go wone in pyne;

And ther I wol eternaly compleyne

My wo, and how that twynned be we tweyne.!

Now Criseyde, when pledging her faith to Troilus, uses practically
the same beautiful words:

Myn herte, and ek the woful goost therinne
Byquethe I with your spirit to compleyne
Eternaly, for they shul nevere twynne.?

The phrase that seems to have been in Chaucer’s mind when he
wrote these lines has been pointed out by Mr Lowes.’ Dante, in the
ninth canto of the Inferno, is describing the Furies. They are, he
says (v. 44)
le meschine
della regina dell’eterno pianto,

the handmaids of Proserpine; the queen of eternal complaint. It is
a haunting phrase, and it is small wonder that it remained in Chau-

cer’s mind.
Closely connected with this passage is Chaucer’s characterization

of the Furies — whom he describes three times. Once, he mentions
the “cruel Furie, sorwing ever in peyne,”’ * once he addresses the

Herynes, Nyghtes doughtren thre,
That endeles compleynen evere in pyne,
Megera, Alete, and ek Thesiphone.®

land and the districts of purgatory and hell. Cf. Orfeo and Herodys, (Ritson, Met. Rom., I,
248), and Dunbar’s curious description of Pluto as “that elriche incubus” (‘The Goldin
Targe,” Poems of Wm. Dunbar, ed. Schipper, Vienna, 1891, p. 107, v. 125). The matter is
mentioned by T. Wright, St Patrick’s Purgatory, London, 1844, pp. 81 ff., and somewhat more
fully discussed in W. Hertz, Spielmannsbuch, Stuttgart, 1905, 3rd ed., pp. 357 ff. (For this
latter reference I am indebted to Mr Kittredge’s kindness.)

1 Troil., iv, 472-76. Cf. H.F., 1511-12: Proserpyne,/That quene is of the derke pyne.

2 Troil., iv, 785-87. 3 Mod. Phil., XIV (1917), 705-35.

4 Troil., i, 9. 5 Troil., iv, 22-24.

|
cf
i
t
t]
q
hi
| la
j th
me
we
SoU
Da
reg
con
Chi
And
seen
gridave
Thes
Payne/
Plainly

Chaucer’s Hell 185

And once in the Franklin’s Tale, when he is describing the torments
of Aurelius, we are told that Aurelius languished, “as a furie dooth
in helle.” ! In other words, Chaucer thinks of the Furies as sorrowful
themselves; they are not only the wrathful cause of sorrow in others.
It has been said that this conception is found only in Dante,’ and
that, since Chaucer’s order of naming the Furies is the same as
that of Dante, Chaucer’s source is plain. This may, however, be
questioned. For Dante is not the only author who describes the
handmaids of Proserpine as being in eternal complaint. Claudian,
for instance, mentions the “‘tristis Erinys,” * and Chaucer, in trans-
lating Boethius, had himself written as follows (Boethius is describ-
ing the effect of Orpheus’ music upon the inhabitants of hell) : 4 “and
the three goddesses, Furies, and vengeresses of felonyes, that tor-
menten and agasten the sowles by anoy, woxen sorwful and sory, and
wepen teres for pity.” In other words, Dante is probably not the only
source for Chaucer’s conception. He undoubtedly remembered
Dante’s description; for as we have seen, he used his words (la
regina dell’eterno pianto) elsewhere, but he could have derived the
conception of “sorwful” furies from Claudian and Boethius as well.®

A similar mingling of associations is probably to be found in
Chaucer’s mention of Minos. He refers to this individual twice; in
each case as the judge of the souls of the damned. Once, in Troilus,
when Troilus, thinking Criseyde to be dead, draws his sword

Hym self to slen, how sore that him smerte,
So that his soule hire soule folwen myghte
Ther as the doom of Mynos wolde it dighte.®

And again, in the first line of the Legend of Ariadne, he addresses
the “Judge infernal, Minos, of Crete king.”” Now Mr Tatlock has
seen in the first mention a reminiscence of Dante’s use of Minos

1 C.T., F 950.

* Mod. Phil, XIV (1917), 718 ff.; see Inf., ix, 37-51; esp. 47: Quella che piange dal
destro é Aletto. . . . and 49: Con l’unghie si fendea ciascuna il petto;/Batteansi a palme, e
gridavan si alto. .. . 3 De Raptu, i, 226.

* De Cons. Phil., iii, met 12. $7 ff.

® Cf. Lydgate, Troy Book, ed. H. Bergen (E. E. T. S., London, 1908), iii, 5446: “‘ Allecto
& Thesyphone,/ And Megara, pat evere doth compleine,/ As pei pat lyve evere in wo and
Payne/ Eternally, and in turment dwelle/ With Cerberus, depe doun in helle” — a passage
Plainly reminiscent of Chaucer. 6 Troil., iv, 1186-88.

H
fae
re
.
€
|
a
‘
4
4

186 Chaucer’s Hell

as a judge over the souls in hell.1 However, this seems to me
to be dubious. In the first place, Chaucer is speaking of “payens
corsed rites,” and he could have found Minos referred to ip
either Virgil or Claudian.? In the second place, it would not be
very appropriate for Troilus, Chaucer’s hero, to descend to the
(Christian) regions of eternal punishment. It is much more likely
that Chaucer merely remembered that Minos was considered the
judge of dead souls, but did not recollect where this fact was men-
tioned.* Dante, Virgil and Claudian seem to have made a sort of
composite imprint on his mind, which he used when it occurred to
him.

Another individual whom Chaucer mentions as residing in hell

is Athamas:
Saturnes doughter, Juno, thorugh hire myght
As wood as Athamante do me dwelle
Eternalich in Stix, the put of helle! ¢

Now Dante (Inf., xxx, 1-4) speaks as follows:

Nel tempo che Giunone era crucciata
per Semelé contra il sangue tebano,
come mostro una ed altra fiata,
Atamante divenne tanto insano;

and Mr Lowes * has suggested that Chaucer borrowed the reference
from Dante. But, as Mr Lowes himself remarks, the form ‘Atha-
mante’ could have come from Ovid, Met. iv, 470; ‘Athamanta,’ and
Ovid is probably the source for Chaucer’s knowledge of that charac-
ter’s woodness. ® Further, we have already seen (p. 183) that the

1 Mod. Lang. Notes, XXTX (1914), 97.

2 Aen., vi, 431-33: Nec vero hae sine sorte datae, sine judice, sedes;/ Quaesitor Minos
urnam movet; ille silentum/ Conciliumque vocat, vitasque et crimina discit. De Raptu, ii, $32:
Urna nec incertas vereat Minoia sorta.

’ Dante is not the only mediaeval visionary who speaks of a judge of the dead. He
occurs also in the vision of Alberic (printed in F. Cancellieri, Osservazione . . . sopra l'origina-
lita . . . di Dante, Roma, 1814), and in the vision of Thurcill (Matthew Paris, Chronica Maior,
A.D. 1206). In this latter vision there are some striking parallels to the Egyptian view of the
other world, where the soul is judged by Horus, Anubis, and Thoth, as (according to Thurcill)
it was judged by St Michael, St Peter, and St Paul. See E. J. Becker, Mediaeval Visions of
Heaven and Hell, Baltimore, 1899, pp. 16-17.

* Troil., iv, 1538-40. 5 Mod. Phil., XIV (1917), 705-35.

® Cf. Met., iv, 485, 499, and 512, where madness is specifically mentioned.

|
he
sh
TI
mé
tio
in!
| He
aw.
pas:
fron
chai
whic
; comes
2
serpent
the ent
see
kirchen
cases is
‘Cc
tation |
day,”
bound:

Chaucer’s Hell 187

phrase, Stix, the put of helle, derives by no means from Dante alone;
hence we cannot use its employment here as additional evidence to
show that Chaucer had Dante in mind when writing Athamante.
The passage can be accounted for by Ovid and the convention of
mediaeval hell; if Dante was in Chaucer’s mind here at all, the por-
tion of it he occupied was, I think, very small.

The prince of hellish inhabitants, “th’ Arch Enemy, and thence
in Heaven called Satan,” is mentioned, in passing, twice by Chaucer.
He is speaking of that “‘sowdanesse, rote of iniquitee” who drove
away Constance; he calls her a

serpent under femininitee,
Lyk to the serpent depe in helle y-bounde.?

And a few lines beyond:
But he, that starf for our redempcioun,
And bond Sathan (and yit lyth ther he lay) . . .*

Descriptions of Satan bound are not very common. We have the
passage in Revelation (xx, 1, 2): “And I saw an angel come down
from Heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great
chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent,
which is the devil, and bound him a thousand years.” * A picture

1 The mention of people in hell in H. F., vv. 489-444:

And also saw I how Sibyle
And Eneas, besyde an yle,
To helle wente, for to see
His fader, Anchises the free.
How he ther fond Palinurus,
And Dido and eek Deiphebus

comes so obviously from Virgil, that it needs no comment.

? C.T., B 360-61. There can be little doubt that Chaucer here refers to the devil; though
serpent-like monsters were a well-known feature of hell (cf. Tundale, ed. cit., pp. 25-27) and
the entrance to hell was commonly pictured as the mouth of a beast (especially in sculpture,
see W. H. v. d. Miilbe, Die Darstellung des jiingsten Gerichtes an den romanischen und gotischen
kirchen-portalen Frankreichs, Leipzig, 1911, plates iv, vi, xi, xiv and xv). But in none of these
cases is the serpent (if such it is) bound. 3 C.T., B 633-34.

* Cf. Jude, 6: “ And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habi-
tation he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, into the judgment of the great
al Also the Old-English Genesis B, vv. 377-79, gives a detailed description of Satan

Me habbad hringa gespong,
slidhearda sal sides amyrred,
afyrred me min fede, fet sint gebundene,
handa gehefte . . .

4
ete
4
2
3
rere
:
‘en

188 Chaucer’s Hell

(here reproduced) of Satan sitting bound in hell existed in the
twelfth-century Hortus deliciarum.' And both Tundale and Dante
echo this description. The climax of Tundale’s tour of the nether
regions comes with his sight of the devil; he peers down into the pit
of hell, and sees the prince de tenebres, who is of enormous size, and
noir com un corbel. He lies on a gridiron, with little devils blowing
up the fire beneath him, and he is bound par toutes les jointures de

chescun membre a grosses chaines de fer et d’erain ensamble ardant:
Dante’s Satan is equally stationary and equally large, but he suffers
from cold rather than from heat, and stands in the bottom of hell
fastened in ice.* It is plain that Chaucer is following the tradition
of these descriptions when he mentions Satan; but when he says
that that monarch yit lyth ther he lay, the reference must be, I think,
to Tundale; for Chaucer and Tundale are alone in giving Satan a
horizontal position.‘

1 From Abbé Brouillet, “Le Jugement dernier dans l’Art,” in Notes d’ Art et d’ Archéologie,
aa) Tondale, ed. cit., p. 87.

; 3 Inf, xxxiv, 28-29: Lo imperador del doloroso regno/da mezzo il petto uscia fuor della
<< once more speaks of “the feend in helle wher that he is lord and sire,” (C.T,
G 918), but the notion of Satan’s dominance over hell was so widely prevalent, that it need
not occupy our further attention.

|
|
GO) |
|
| I
le
L
of
|

Chaucer's Hell

CHARACTERISTICS OF HELL

We now come to Chaucer’s characterization of hell: it is dark;
it is fiery; it has innumerable torments; it stinks; it has a loudly bel-
lowing wind; and it is inhabited by yelling black devils.

The description of hell as “dark,” is, of course, a classical com-
monplace. We have Virgil’s ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per um-
bram,! Claudian’s pratisque Ereba nigrantibus errant,? and many
other similar phrases which contribute to the general gloomy im-
pression of those nether regions. Further Dante’s Inferno is also
dark: oscura, profunda era, e nebulosa;* so that when Chaucer
speaks of Proserpine’s “owene derke regioun”’ ‘ or of Pluto’s “derke
regioun”’ * or of the “regne of Pluto derk and lowe,” ° it is likely
that his authorities for his description are, as usual, scattered, with
a large preponderance on the side of the classical. But when, on
the other hand, he refers to Morpheus’ Cave as being

as dark
As helle pit over-al aboute,’
or says,
“Derk was this cave, and smoking as the helle,” ®

a reference to the classics seems less probable. Let us glance again
at the mediaeval visions. As Drihthelm was led by his heavenly
conductor from the valley of purgatory towards the pit of hell, he
“saw the place begin to grow dusk and filled with darkness. When
I came into it, the darkness, by degrees, grew so thick, that I
could see nothing besides it and the shape and garment of him that
led me.” * So another early monk, one Barontus, of the abbey of
Longoretus in the district of Berry, in France, enjoyed a prospect
of hell — it appeared to him a dark obscure place, covered with

1 Aen., vi, 268. It is interesting to note that Bede, when describing Drihthelm’s progres-
sion through Purgatory (Eccl. Hist., v, 12), uses practically these same words: “et cum pro-
grederemur sola sub nocte per umbras” (cf. C. Plummer’s ed., II, 299, note ad loc.). The dark-
ness of the mediaeval hell was doubtless a legacy from the Classical Hades.

* De Raptu, i, 281. 3 Inf, iv, 10. ‘ C.T., F 1078.

* 0.T., A 2082. C.T., A 2299, B. of D., 170-71.

® Mars, 120. ® Bede, Eccl. Hist., v, 12.

189
the
her
pit
and
ing
de
ant.:
ffers
ition
says
sink
an a
logit,

r della

(Cl, Wwe
t need

190 Chaucer’s Hell

vaporous clouds.’ Alberic, an Italian boy nine years old, was
vouchsafed a vision of the other world in which he saw the os in.
fernalis baratri . . . qui simile videbatur puteo, which threw out an
intolerable stench, and was dark; so dark, indeed, that Alberic, like
Barontus, could see nothing of what went on there.? Tundale’s soul
is left alone on the brink of hell “en tele maniére qu’ele ne povit
veir,” so dark it was,’ and he saw a deep smoking valley with “une
fumee si puant que plus grevoit as ames a sentir que tout le tourment
qu’eles avoient souffert par-devant.” In the light of these descrip-
tions, Chaucer’s phrases would seem rather to echo the mediaeval
visions than anything classical. Certainly darkness and smoke must
have been a widely recognized characteristic of hell. Thus in the
lines of the Second Nun’s prayer:

So for to werken yif me wit and space,
That I be quit fro thennes that most derk is. . . .*

Chaucer’s audience would soon recognize a reference to the lower
regions.

But of all the phenomena in mediaeval hell, fire was the most
striking. Indeed, it is the chief means of punishment in nearly all
eschatologies; it is found in Buddhist and Mohammedan doctrine,
in the Old and New Testaments, it is common throughout the
Fathers, is emphasized in every mediaeval vision,* and is one of the
chief punishments in Dante’s Inferno.’ Thus when Chaucer prays
the Virgin,

Now lady from the fyr thou us defende
Which that in helle eternally shall dure”

1 “Visio Baronti Monachi Longoretus,” Mon. Germ. Hist., Script. Rer. Meroving., 1910,
v, 390, Sect. 17: “‘ Deinde iter agentes pervenimus ad infernum, sed non vidimus quid inter
se ageretur propter tenebrarum caliginem et fumigantium multitudinem.” Cf. Ovid, Ma,
iv, 434, ‘‘Styx nebulas exhalat iners.”

2 F. Cancellieri, Osservazione sopra . . . l'originalita della Divina Comedia di Dante (Rome,
1814), p. 162.

3 La vision de Tondale, ed. cit., p. 34. 4 C.T., G 65-66.

5 It occasionally occurs, not only in hell, but also in heaven. In the Hebrew Revelation
of Moses (trans. M. Gaster, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, pp. 571 ff.), the following
curious description is given: “I saw further the fiery river Rizyon, which comes out befor
God, from under the throne of glory and is formed from the perspiration of the holy Creatures
who support the throne of Glory, and out of dread of God’s majesty perspire fire.”
® See cantos ix, xiv, and xxvi. 7 ABC, 95-96.

f
—
|
q
f
|
i |
i
|

“Et gisoit cel orrible dyable sus un greil de fer qui estoit assis sus grant plentet
de charbons ardans.” (Tundale)

“L’Enfer,” from Les Tris Riches Heures de Jean de France, Duc de Berry (ed. Paul Durrieu, Paris,
1904, plate x!vii): after Tundale’s description.

before

(

Chaucer’s Hell 191

he is referring to a very common notion, one which was in every-
body’s mind, had been there for a long time, and for which it is
hopeless to seek any definite source.

The same lack of a definite authority strikes us in Chaucer’s ac-
count of the infernal torments. When he mentions the “pyne” or
“peyne” of hell we can only remark that Chaucer, like all his con-
temporaries, was not unaware that punishment for sins was a leading
feature of the future existence. That these punishments were numer-
ous was also commonly observed. Virgil says, for instance:

Non, mihi si linguae centum sint oraque centum
Ferrea vox, omnis scelarum comprendere formas
Omnia poenarum pecurrer nomina possim.!

Hardly one of the mediaeval visionaries refrains from making the
same comment, and anybody who had read Dante realized that
there was justification for it. Thus when Chaucer speaks of “every
tourment down in helle . . . which is long to telle,” * he was again
repeating a commonplace. It is possible that he was thinking of
Dante’s numerous forms of torture, but we have no means for
proving it.

In the House of Fame (v. 1654), as we have already observed,
Eolus’ black trumpet “stank as the pit of helle,” and Chaucer says
to the Virgin (ABC, 54-56)

So have I doon in erthe, allas ther-whyle!

That certes, but-if thou my socour be,
To stink eterne he [God] wol my gost exyle.

Now hell, to the ancients, may have been a disagreeable place, but
it did not stink; it was left to mediaeval imagination to add this
feature. When Dante, for example, is speaking of the gluttonous,
he says “pute la terra che questo riceve”;* the wrathful and the

1 Aen., vi, 625. These words are given a Christian turn in the M.E. Visio Pauli (in
Old English Miscellany, vv. 268 ff.), where it is said that though a hundred men, with teeth
and tongues of steel, had sat talking from the birth of Cain till now, yet they would have left
untold a thousand pains and more. The same phrase recurs in Richard Rolle’s Pricke of
Conscience (ed. R. Morris, Berlin, 1863, vv. 647 ff.); if a hundred thousand men, with “an
hundreth thousand tunges of stele” had been talking since the beginning of the world, they
could not tell all the sorrow of hell.

2 H. F., 445. 3 Inf., vi, 12.

“4
i
4
=
raat

192 Chaucer’s Hell

sullen lie on a lorda pozza, ‘a putrid fen’; 1 and it takes him some time
to become accustomed to the horrible smell thrown out by the lower
depths of hell:

lorribile soperchio
del puzzo, che il profondo abisso gitta.?
So Sir Owayn, in St Patrick’s Purgatory, comes to a “deep water...
that foule stunk”; * “‘so strong stunch” ‘ as that from the pit of
hell, Owayn had never smelled. And St Brandan, as he sails north-

ward, comes to
a lond deark i-noug,
Smoke stynkinde foule; °

which he soon discovers to be hell. St Paul, when the chief infernal
pit was unsealed, was overcome by the stench issuing from it:

Et tele puor en issi
Que soz ciel n’est hueme né
Ki sace dire la verité ®

And Tundale, left alone on the brink of hell, felt “soubitement si
grant horreur et si grant froit et si grant pueur et tenebres et tribu-
lations et angoisse si grant que il astoit avis a l’ame que tous li
fondemens de la terre tranbloit sous ses pies” — the wretched soul
could not move “pour la tres grant puour qu’ele sentoit.”"” Thus,
when Chaucer mentions such a common convention as the stink
of hell, we cannot assume that he thought of any particular de-
scription.

And wind was as common as the stink. The author of the Poema
Morale speaks of “‘Hwile hete is per soule wuned, hu biter winde
per blawed’’; ® in St Patrick’s Purgatory, we are told, “a smart
wind . . . blewz wel faste’”’ ® on the tortured souls. And as Owayn is
about to cross the pit of hell by a bridge (a bridge so high no one
1 Inf., vii, 127. 2 Inf., xi, 5-6.

3 Ed. cit., vv. 331-32. * Ed. cit., v. 407.

5 Early South English Legendary, vv. 470-71, p. 232.

® Printed in A. F. Ozanam, Etudes sur les Sources Poétiques de la Divine Comédie (Paris,
1845), p. 111, vv. 198 ff. :

1 La Vision de Tondale, ed. cit., pp. 33-34. (Cf. passage cited, p. 192, above.)

8 Old English Miscellany, v. 138.
® Ed. cit., v. 245.

f
| |
i
il
0
le
j fo
M
fis
| A
is
th
an
hec

Chaucer’s Hell 193

dared mount it, so narrow that no one could set foot on it, and so
slippery no one could stay on it without falling), he is warned that
the fiends will send “‘such a wynde”’ that he will be blown down to
hell.! So when Chaucer in the House of Fame (v. 1803) says that
Eolus blew his trumpet “‘as loude as belweth wind in helle,” he had,
for the existence of that hellish wind, a strong tradition behind him.
But that winds bellowed is not so ordinary a feature. It is found in

Dante:
Io venni in loco d’ogni luce muto,

che mugghia come fa mar per tempesta
Se da contrari venti é combattuto; ?

and as Mr Lowes has remarked,* Chaucer’s word, “‘belweth,” seems
like a direct translation of Dante’s mugghia. The noise made by
infernal wind, however, is also mentioned by the Ayenbite of Inwit:
in hell there is “‘ ver bernynde, brenstone stinkinde, tempeste brayinde,
voule dyevlen, honger, and porst.’’‘ And in the light of this, we
cannot assume that only Dante was in Chaucer’s mind when he
mentioned infernal winds, though it is likely that he had some recol-
lection of Dante’s description.

In the Nun’s Priest’s Tale the people chasing Chanticleer and the
fox “yelleden as feendes doon in helle.” > Now Dante’s fiends, the
Malebranche,* only twice do anything like this. When Ciampolo is
fished by the devils from the river of pitch, Dante says (vv. 40-42),

“O Rubicante, fa che tu gli metti
gli unghioni addosso si che tu lo scuoi,”
gridavan tutti insieme i maledetti.

Again one of them “si mosse, e grido,”’ (v. 126). But this yelling
isa mere commonplace. If we turn to St Brandan’s fiends, we find
that “they gounnen to yeolle faste”’? and even when St Brandan
and his companions are some distance from hell ‘‘ Yeot heo i-heorden
heore yeollinge.” * And in St Patrick’s Purgatory, the fiends do little
else but yell. As the devils came to Sir Owayn, “yeollinde ech-one

Old English Miscellany, v. 415. 2 Inf., v. 28-80.

* Mod. Phil., XIV (1917), 717; cf. also Miss Stanford, art. cit. infra, p. $81, n. 14, at end,

‘ Ed. R. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1866, p. 73 (this seems closer to Dante than does Chaucer).

5 C.T., B 4579. 6 Inf., xxii, 42, 126.
Ed. cit., v. 482. 8 Ibid., v. 493.

ne
er
4
of
h-
ae
1al
$i
li
nk
+o
le-
1S
ne
aris,
q
|

194 Chaucer’s Hell

heo were,” ! “‘heo yollen and grenneden on him foule, wel gris.
liche he yollen.” * St Paul, journeying in the other world, was shown

a serwful siht,
And he looked ber forp riht;
An Old man sat ber wepynge
Bi-twene four develes foul yellynge.‘

Another characteristic of Chaucer’s devils is their blackness,
Pertelote is talking about the effect of dreams; she says,

the humour of malencolye
Causeth ful many a man, in sleep, to crye
For fere of blake beres, or boles blake,
Or elles, blake develes wol him take.®

Now neither St Patrick’s Purgatory nor the Voyage of St Brendan
mentions the color of the devils who dwell in hell; but their black-
ness is elsewhere unquestioned. Charles the Fat met devils of a
black complexion; he was led “in profundissimas ualles et igneas;
ecce, nigerrimi daemones aduolantes cum uncis igneis.” * Tundale
saw the same variety — the devils who tormented the souls on the
brink of hell’s pit “‘estoient noir comme charbon.”? And when he
later caught a glimpse of the “prince de tenebres,” that monarch,
as we have seen, was also black, “noir com un corbel.” So in the
Debate of the Body or the Soul we have “mani a devel foul and blac,”*
and in Guy of Warwick, black devils are referred to.? Dante is not
unaware of this convention (Inf., xxii, 29) and, like Chaucer, he
here draws from a floating mass of tradition.

Chaucer gives us another hint concerning his conception of hell.
Constance’s first mother-in-law is persuading the assembly not to
submit to Christianity:

1 Old English Miscellany, Appendix II, v. 143. 2 Ibid., v. 168.
3 Ibid., v. 177. 4 Ibid., vv. 178 ff. 5 C.T., B 4123-26.
6 William of Malmsbury, Gesta regum Anglorum, ii, 8.
7 La Vision de Tondale, ed. cit., p. 34.
8 From O. F. Emerson, Middle English Reader, London, 1924, p. 60, 1. 14.
® Ed. J. Zupitza, E.E.T.S., London, 1887, p. 430, stanza 62.
A Saracen is described:
As blac he is as brodes brend;
He semes as it were a fende,
Pat comen were out of helle.

4
5
i
’
a
|
in
SE
tie
xl

Chaucer’s Hell

What shulde us tyden of this newe lawe
But thraldom to our bodies and penance?
And afterward in helle to be drawe.!

The idea of being ‘drawn’ is not mentioned by Dante, but Sir
Owayn, in St Patrick’s Purgatory, knows hardly any other form of
locomotion. The devils “to-drowen him wel faste.” * They “drewen

with heom this knigt,” * “mid oules heom to-drowe,” ‘ and from
punishment to punishment, the devils thus lead their unfortunate
victim.

The relation between Chaucer and St Patrick’s Purgatory has
already been ably pointed out by Miss M. A. Stanford.’ The lines
in the Sumner’s Tale,

“Delivereth out,” quod he, “anon the soules,
Ful hard it is with fleshhooks or with oules!
To been y-clawed, or to brenne or bake.” ®

in which Chaucer gives us a description of purgatorial torments,
seem to refer definitely to Owayn’s picture of them. And, as Miss

1 C.T., B 337-39. 2 Ed. cit., v. 170. 3 Ed. cit., v. 178.

* Ed. cit. v. 248. This, to be sure, is in purgatory rather than hell, but the peculiari-
ties of the two places are often indistinguishable.

* “The Sumner’s Tale and Saint Patrick’s Purgatory,” Journ. Eng. and Germ. Philol.,
XIX (1920), 877-81. C. T., D 1729-31.

195

< ~\ ia

= (RAS: q

n he Gay 3
. the
4
a

196 Chaucer’s Hell

Stanford remarks, ‘oules’ (awls) and flesh-hooks were not only
common in mediaeval descriptions of hell, but are found in purgatory
also. One may see what the flesh-hooks looked like in a curious
woodcut printed in a little black letter pamphlet at Lyons in 1506,
Le Voyage du Pays Sainct Patrix (reprinted Paris, 1839, as here
reproduced): horrible looking tools — a sort of cross between a club
and a rake, or a two-pronged fork. As for the ‘oules,’ the reader
may observe their method of application in the lower left hand
corner of the plate opposite page 188.!

Chaucer gives three more descriptive notes of hell. One of these
is the Sumner’s unsavory description of the future dwelling-place
of friars,” which we mentioned at the beginning of this paper (p. 179).
That this is probably not of Chaucer’s invention but rather from
current tradition may be inferred by the Sumner’s words:

For pardee, ye han ofte tyme herd telle,
How that a frere ravisshed was to helle...

with which he begins his account. But though the exact situation
here described does not seem to have survived in literature outside
of Chaucer,’ nevertheless the disagreeable position occupied by
Chaucer’s friars was pretty familiar to mediaeval imagination. In
the fresco of hell (formerly attributed to Orcagna) in the Campo
Santo at Pisa, we may see an unfortunate individual (labelled Simon
Magus in a sixteenth-century (?) reproduction of this fresco) who

1 Flesh-hooks, awls, etc., may be found in La Vision de Tondale, ed. cit., p. 12; in Thurcill’s
vision (Matthew Paris, Chronica Maior, a.p. 1206); in Dante, Inf., xxi, 52 ff.; in The Debate
of the Body and the Soul, v. 414, in the Visio Pauli (Old English Miscellany, pp. 147 f.),
and, as Miss Stanford observes, throughout St Patrick’s Purgatory. The N.E.D. gives no
meaning for awl except that of ‘pricker’— more especially the shoemaker’s tool. But the
context of the visions demands something more than this; one could be ‘drawn’ with awls
(St Patrick’s Purgatory, v. 179), and ‘rent’ by them (Body and Soul, v. 414), language which
would imply that they were more like hooks than awls. The term was probably used to
include almost any kind of pointed instrument.

2 C.T., D 1685-1706.

3 Thomas Wright (St Patrick’s Purgatory, London, 1844, p. 35) suggested that the Sum-
ner’s description was due to an incident in the vision of Tundale, where the souls of monks
and canons are swallowed and digested by a hideous beast, and then expelled “‘in the natural
way” into a frozen lake (see ed. of Friedel and Meyer, pp. 25-27). But the beast is not Satan,
nor are the souls permanent inhabitants of his posterior. Cf. Fragment C of the Romaunt
of the Rose, vv. 7577-78: “But thou shalt for this sinne dwelle/ Right in the devils ers of
helle.”

Chaucer’s Hell 197

is in painfully close contact with the prince de tenebres. Giotto, in
his picture of the Last Judgment in the Arena Chapel at Padua, had
the same notion: a writhing figure issues half-way out of Satan’s
posterior. So that in this instance also, we may be sure that
Chaucer is drawing upon his usual conventional material.!

In the Man of Law’s Tale, Chaucer addresses the following
words to old Donegild, who has behaved in a treacherous manner
to Constance, her daughter-in-law:

Fy, mannish fy! O nay, by god, I lye,
Fy, feendly spirit for I dar wel telle
Though thou heer walke, thy spirit is in helle! ?

Now Mr Tatlock has considered * this to be a recollection of Dante’s
description of Tolomea (Inf., xxxiii, 124 ff.), the home of traitors:

Cotal vantaggio ha questa Tolomea
Che spesse volte Vanima ci cade
innanzi ch’ Atropos mossa le dea.

And it seems possible that Chaucer actually had this notion in mind
when blaming Donegild for treachery. The conception is not found,

to my knowledge, outside of Dante.
The last remark which we shall consider is made by the Friar:

Al-be-it so, no tonge may devyse,
Thogh that I mighte a thousand winter telle
The peyne of thilke cursed hous of helle.*

We have heard Virgil speak, in somewhat similar terms, of the
difficulties of describing the torments of hell, and the description of

1 Skeat considered the lines,
“ And now hath Sathanas,” saith he, “a tayl
Brodder than of a carrik is the say” (C.T., D 1687-88),
reminiscent of Dante’s description of Satan’s wings: “‘vele di mar nou vidio mai cotali” (Inf.,
xxxiv, 38). But this is very doubtful.

In Modern Language Notes, XXIX (1914), 143, Mr Tatlock expresses the view that the
incident is related to one told by Caesarius of Heisterbach (Dial. Mir., vii, 59) about a
vision of heaven; Mr Curry (MLN, XXXVIII (1923), 253) connects it with Inf. xxxiv,
76-77, where the “meanest part of Satan’s anatomy” is the bottom of hell. But Mr Tat-
lock’s paralle] contains no reference to the location of the incident; Mr Curry’s citation omits
the story. I find it difficult to believe that Dante had anything to do with Chaucer’s
description. 2 C.T., B 782-784.

* Mod. Lang. Notes, XXIX (1914), 97. ‘ C.T., D 1650-52.

lly
ry
Us
06,
ere
ub
ler
4
bse
9).
ide
In
1po
3 no
the
awls
hich
onks
tural
rs of

198 Chaucer’s Hell

hell as a “hous” may be found both in the Middle-English vision
of St Paul! and the romance of the Holy Grail.? Thus, even in the
most minute of Chaucer’s infernal descriptions, the influence of
tradition is all important.

We have now come to the end of Chaucer’s references to hell.
It is plain, I think, that he nearly always draws, not from any single
description, but from the general hellish convention which underlies
them all; a convention which (like nearly everything else in the
Middle Ages) was a combination of Christian and classical material.
The visions alone, as we remarked at the beginning, established a
common basis of imagery and language for their pictures of hell.
In them hell was a dark pit, the prison-house of Satan, full of fire
and stink; inhabited by black and yelling devils, who, in purgatory
as well as in hell, tortured their victims with “oules”’ and flesh-
hooks. Chaucer, quite naturally, based his descriptions on these
conventional details; it is impossible that he should have lived in
the fourteenth century and done otherwise.

But have we evidence to prove his acquaintance with any of the
individual visions? * Though it is very slight, I think we have.
In the article referred to above (p. 195, n. 5), Miss Stanford has
shown the extreme probability of Chaucer’s familiarity with the
clerical version of St Patrick’s Purgatory. I can only endorse her
conclusion; the great popularity of the poem, combined with the
Sumner’s description of purgatorial discomforts (C. T., D 1729-31),
makes it very likely that Chaucer knew of it. And I believe the
same may be said of Tundale’s vision. Chaucer and Tundale, as
we have seen (supra, p. 188), are alone in describing Satan as lying
bound in hell (the other descriptions of Satan bound either do not
describe his position or mention him as erect), and it seems to me
exceedingly likely, considering how very popular Tundale’s vision

1 Old English Miscellany, Appendix II (Vernon MS.), v. 140; the unchaste are seen with
four “‘angels”’ standing by them “‘ bat wearen of be hous of helle.”

2 Ed. F. S. Furnivall (E.E.T.S., London, 1875, pt 2) ch. xxxiii, 108 ff. King Label in
a vision sees a filthy house, and he is later told (v. 351): “That dirk blak hows signefyeth
~ Mr W. O. Sypherd (Studies in Chaucer's Hous of Fame, Chaucer Society, London, 1907,
pp. 68, 115) has already produced some possible visionary parallels to the poem he so cart
fully examined.

| he

Thi im

rel

teen

Pat

appe

class

Chaucer’s Hell 199

was, that Chaucer borrowed his description from it. We cannot be
absolutely certain, but everything (as in the case of St Patrick’s
Purgatory) stands in favor of the assumption.

As for classical references to hell, here too we find a background
of common tradition. To Chaucer, the realm of Pluto and Proser-
pine was a dark, low region, near the Elysian fields, where Lethe
and Phlegethon flowed, Cerberus was stationed, and Sisyphus,
Tityos, Ixion and Tantalus languished in company with the Furies.
But there is little that can be traced with certainty to either Virgil
or Claudian; though to Virgil we may credit the passing reference to
Palinurus and his companions (H.F., 439-44), and to Claudian
we may doubtfully assign the mention of Pluto (H.F., 1509-12)
and of Lethe (H.F., 71-72). We can be no more definite about the
source for his mention of Tityos, Tantalus, Cerberus, Phlegethon,
and the others than we can be, say, for his reference to the infernal
stench. Yet this very inconclusiveness is perhaps the most interest-
ing thing about our discussion. It shows, for one thing, that in
describing hell, Chaucer (as indeed we might have suspected) was
entirely dependent on convention, and that his phraseology is de-
rived from that convention; and it shows that this convention itself
was (when expressed in literature) a changing one — shifting, as
oecasion demanded, from a classical to a mediaeval outline, and back
again.?

And what of Dante? One would have imagined, attacking the
subject in an a priori fashion, that, if Chaucer had known the
Divine Comedy well, details of Dante’s vivid and intense picture of
hell would have made a stronger impression on him than any others.
We know, at least, that he quotes more from the Inferno than from
the other two canticles of the poem; yet when we review Chaucer’s
images of hell, we find that the number of those drawn from Dante
isremarkably small. There are, as a matter of fact, only two probable
reminiscences of the Inferno: the recollection of the property of

' An entertaining example of this Classical-Christian confusion may be seen in the thir-
teenth-century poem, Le Turnoiement d’ Antecrist, by Hugo de Berti (cited in T. Wright, St
Patrick's Purgatory, London, 1844, p. 111, from MS. Harl 4417), where Pluto and Proserpine

appear as the monarchs of hell, leading an army composed indiscriminately of Christian vices,
classical deities, and the companions of Beelzebub. Cf. p. 183, n. 7.

ion
the
of

ell
gle
the
ial.
la
ell.
ory
sh-
ese
in

the
ve.
has
the

her
the
1),
ing

not

with
yeth

200 Chaucer’s Hell

Tolomea (supra, p. 197) and the remembrance of Dante’s phrag
“la regina dell’ eterno pianto”’ (supra, p. 184). And we cannot be
absolutely sure, even of these. When Chaucer refers to the “feld
of pitee out of peyne” (supra, p. 182), we are on still shakier ground,
but it seems likely that he had Dante’s Limbo in mind, though in
connection with classic tradition as well (swpra, p. 182). When he
speaks about the Furies, he may have had Dante in mind also, but
he could have found similarities to his conception, as we have shown,
in Claudian and Boethius (supra, p. 185). As for the “belwing”
wind, Dante’s influence seems predominant, but not complete
(supra, p. 193); and the other remarks once attributed to Dante's
influence: the “‘swolow” of hell, and Minos as judge of the damned,
seem to be the result of convention (supra, pp. 181, 185). So with
the hellish smell and the yelling devils. Dante and Chaucer hada
common source; one was not the origin of the other.

Our conclusion thus tends to minimize Dante’s influence. Chau-
cer’s references to hell are, to be sure, fragmentary and brief, but
those which probably derive from Dante are among the briefest of
all. The most we can say is that Dante, as far as his picture of hell

is concerned, occupied a slightly more important place in Chaucer's
mind than Virgil or Claudian; the influence of convention was over-
whelmingly predominant.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.

6 :
| |
\
if
q
{
{
8.

NOTES

ALDHELM AT THE HANDS OF SHARON TURNER

SHaRoN TURNER (1768-1847), who inaugurated the modern study of Old
English literature by his History of England from the Earliest Period to the
Norman Conquest (1795-1805), devoted a part of his Book 9, chapter 6,
to Aldhelm’s prose, having already treated of his verse in chapter 5.
Mentioning Aldhelm’s treatise on virginity as his principal prose work, he
pays his compliments to its style in a passage which contains these two
sentences (3.403-4) :

He clouds his meaning by his gorgeous rhetoric: never content with illustrat-
ing his sentiment by an adapted simile, he is perpetually abandoning his subject
to pursue his imagery. He illustrates his illustrations till he has forgotten both
their meaning and applicability.

He then quotes four paragraphs in exemplification, the first containing
only disjointed phrases and clauses, culled from different parts of the work;
the second corresponding to 247.9-13 of Ehwald’s edition (Aldhelmi Opera:
Mon. Germ. Hist., Auctorum Antiquissimorum Tomus XV. Berlin, 1919);
the third representing most of 320.20-321.2; and the fourth standing for
931.12-232.11 —all in translation. To illustrate the method and quality
of Turner’s version, I subjoin, first the Latin of this fourth specimen, and
then the specimen itself ! (the square brackets enclose portions omitted by
Turner, and the reference-numbers correspond with those in the transla-
tion):

Ast tamen solertissimse apis industriam [predictis exemplorum formulis coap-
tari posse uberrima rerum experimenta liquido declarant], que roscido facessante
crepusculo ! et exorto limpidissimi solis iubare densos extemplo? tripudiantium
turmarum exercitus per patentes campos [gregatim] diffundunt, modo melligeris
caltarum frondibus seu purpureis malvarum floribus incubantes [mulsa] nectaris
[stillicidia] guttatim rostro * decerpunt [et velut lento careni defruto, quod regalibus
ferculis conficitur, avida viscerum receptacula certatim implere contendunt,] modo
flavescentes saliculas et crocata‘ genestarum cacumina circumvallantes [fertilem]
predam numerosis crurum et coxarum oneribus * advehunt, quibus cerea castra
conficiunt, modo teretes hederarum corimbos * et levissimos florentis’ tilise surculos ®
constipantes multiformem favorum machinam ° angulosis et opertis ' cellulis con-
struunt, cuius artis molimen ™ egregius poeta metrica facundia " fretus catalectico
versu creditur!* cecinisse, [cum diceret

| History of England from the Earliest Period to the Death of Elizabeth (London, 1889),

201

rt be
“feld
und,
sh in
n he

but
own,
”
ing
plete

nte’s
ned,
with 3
ad a ;

‘hau-

st of

hell
icer’s

202 Notes

Cerea gemmatis flavescunt mella canistris

et infra brachicatalecto sive colopho
Collucentque suis aurea vasa favis.

Nam quemadmodum examen arta fenestrarum foramina et angusta alvearii vesti-
bula certatim per turmas egressum amorena arvorum prata populatur,] eodem
modo vestrum, ni fallor, memoriale mentis ingenium “ per florulenta * scripturarum
arva [late] vagans bibula " curiositate decurrit.

Turner’s translation (3.405) follows, with notes calling attention to its
inaccuracies and infelicities:

Resembling the industry of the most sagacious bees which, when the dewy
dawn appears,’ and the beams of the most limpid sun arise, pour the thick armies
of their dancing crowds from the temple * over the open fields; now lying in the
honey-bearing leaves of the marigolds, or in the purple flowers of the mallows, they
suck the nectar, drop by drop, with their beaks *; now flying round the yellowing
willows and purplish‘ tops of the broom, they carry their plunder on numerous
thighs and burthened legs, from which they make their waxen castles; now crowding
about the round berries ° of the ivy, and the light springs ° of the flourishing’ linden
trees, they construct the multiform machine ° of their honeycombs with angular and
open " cells, whose artificial structure the " excellent poet with natural eloquence "
has*® sung in catalectic verse; so, unless I mistake, your memorising ingenuity of
mind," in like manner wandering through the flourishing fields of letters, runs
with a bibulous " curiosity.

1 dawn appears: darkness retreats

2 from the temple: straightway

3 beaks: tongues

4 purplish: golden

5 on numerous thighs and burthened legs: by innumerable loads on legs and hips
6 berries: clusters

7 flourishing: flowering

8 springs: sprigs (misprint)

® machine: fabric

10 open: hidden

11 whose artificial structure the: which ingenious contrivance an
12 natural eloquence: metrical fluency

13 has: is believed to have

4 ingenuity of mind: faculty

15 flourishing: flowery

16 bibulous: absorbing (insatiable, avid)

Asser, in his Life of King Alfred, twice makes use of this figure of the
bees (chaps. 76 and 88), which Stevenson, in his edition (p. 302), suggests
he may have borrowed from Aldhelm. The passage from chapter 76 runs
thus in my translation (Boston, 1906) :

Like a prudent bee, which, rising in summer at early morning from her beloved
cells, steers her course with rapid flight along the uncertain paths of the air, and
descends on the manifold and varied flowers of grasses, herbs, and shrubs, essaying
that which most pleases her, and bearing it home, he directed the eyes of his mind
afar, and sought that without which he had not within, that is, in his own kingdom.

|
i
d
b
bl

Notes 203

That from chapter 88 is as follows:

Thus, like a most productive bee, flying far and wide, and scrutinizing the fen-
lands, he eagerly and unceasingly collected various flowers of Holy Scripture, with
which he copiously stored the cells of his mind.

As Stevenson points out, the metaphor was common among classical
and later writers. The first occurrence is perhaps Lucretius 3.9-13, where,
apostrophizing Epicurus, he says:

Tu, pater, es rerum inventor, tu patria nobis
Suppeditas precepta, tuisque ex, inclute, chartis,
Floriferis ut apes in saltibus omnia libant,
Omnia nos itidem depascimur aurea dicta,
Aurea, perpetua semper dignissima vita.

The process of assimilating the gatherings is dwelt on by Seneca (Letter
84), who first quotes Virgil, Aen. 1.432-3:

Or with the flowing honey storing close
The pliant cells, until they quite run o’er
With nectared sweet.

He then comments:

Let us perfectly assimilate the various morsels of our spiritual food; otherwise
they will pass into our memory, but not into our soul. Let us make them wholly
our own, and appropriate them utterly, so that a unity shall result from the orig-
inal multiplicity. ... Let our mind conceal all its borrowings, and only display the
finished product into which it has converted them.

ALBERT STANBURROUGH COOK,
Yale University.

GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS AND PETRONIUS

Gmatpus CamBreEnsis has been strangely neglected by students of the
history of classical scholarship. Sandys dismisses him with a brief para-
graph, stating summarily that practically all the important Latin authors
except Lucretius and Tacitus are quoted by him, and even this statement
needs qualification. No comprehensive study of his classical scholarship
seems to have been made, though an excellent account of one phase of it
isfound in the first number of this journal (C. C. Coulter and F. P. Magoun,
Jr, “Giraldus Cambrensis and Indo-Germanic Philology,” Speculum, I
(1926), 104-109).

One naturally thinks of Giraldus’ greater contemporary, John of Salis-
bury. There is, to judge from my incomplete material, a decided resem-
blance in the lists of authors mentioned by these two. There seems to be

m
im

its
wy
es 4
the
ing 3
ous
"
ing
Jen
and 4

the i
rests

oved
and
mind
dom.

204 Notes

no writer known to Giraldus and not also to John; on the latter’s list we
find only two new names, Catullus, quoted once, and Livy, merely men-
tioned. But if one compares the depth of knowledge possessed by them,
the results may be quite different.

The case of Petronius is in point. No writer of the Middle Ages or
Renaissance possessed a knowledge of Petronius comparable to that of
John. Giraldus, on the other hand, quotes him only once, so far as my
information goes. While Burmann refers to this quotation in his editions
of Petronius of 1709 and 1743, it seems to have escaped the notice of
Biicheler, who makes no reference to it in his critical apparatus (possibly
for reasons suggested below); it also eluded Collignon, Thomas, and Mani-
tius, who have carefully collected the testimonia; and the sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century scholars who devoted so much time and zeal to the
study of Petronius. For this reason, it may not be out of place to call
attention to the quotation again.

In chapter 3 of the Itinerartum Kambriae, Giraldus quotes four verses
of Petronius, printed by modern editors in chapter 82 of the Satirae, by
earlier editors in chapter 42. Some points of interest may be noted. First,
the passage is quoted from Petronius by Fulgentius (Myth. ii, 18), an
author of whom Giraldus displays no knowledge. Second, the passage is
found only in the printed editions of Tornaesius (1575) and Pithoeus (1577),
in the MS. edition of Scaliger (MS. Zeid. 61), in the interpolated MS.
Monacensis 12479 (saec. xvii or xviii), in a florilegium (Paris 17903; so
probably in Paris 7647 and other similar MSS), in Vincent of Beauvais,
and, in part, in Jacobus Magnus, and in none of the MSS of the vulgate
family. It is therefore part of the florilegium tradition, and Giraldus is
perhaps, except for Fulgentius, the earliest source.

The question now arises whether Giraldus got the passage from Petro-
nius direct or from Fulgentius. A collation of the passage may be of as-
sistance in deciding. I print first the four lines as they are found in the
latest text of Biicheler (sixth edition by Heraeus, 1922):

Non bibit inter aquas poma aut pendentia carpit
Tantalus infelix, quem sua vota premunt.

Divitis haec magni facies erit, omnia cernens
Qui timet et sicco concoquit ore famem.

I now quote the readings of the following:

B Bicheler’s editio maior of 1862 M Monacensis 12479

F Fulgentius N Parisinus 17903

G Giraldus p Pithoeus’ edition of 1577

I Jacobus Magnus (Zophil. II, 4,18) t Tornaesius’ edition of 1575

L Leidensis 61 V Vincent of Beauvais (Spec. Hist.
25)

:
2
. 4
of
reg
mi

Notes 205

y. 1. Nec Ft (i.m.) Non cett. nec poma FGL (i.m.) neque poma t (i.m.) poma
aut cett. patentia F (editions) fugacia G pendentia cett. (except dependentia
in one MS. of Fulgentius, and apparently in a gloss in a Bodleian MS. of
Claudian, quoted by Burmann).

y.$. omnia late FGL (%.m.) omnia cernens cett.

y. 4. Quae t qui t (7.m.) cett. tenet BFGIL (i.m.) MNV timet Lpt conquerit
INV concoquit cett.

While the body of evidence is too slight to admit of certainty, the read-
ings nec poma (v. 1) and omnia late (v. 3) seem to indicate that Giraldus
derived the passage from Fulgentius and not from any MS. of Petronius
now known. Scaliger of course took his marginal readings in L from Ful-
gentius. There is only one example of a reading belonging clearly to the
florilegium tradition represented here by INV (conquerit in v. 4), and that
Giraldus does not have. The reading fugacia (v. 1) may be a conjecture of
Giraldus, or the actual reading of the Fulgentius MS. that he used. It is
an easy conjecture, made again centuries later by Muncker and perhaps
by others. It would appear probable then that Giraldus borrowed the
poem from Fulgentius, and it is perhaps due to a universal recognition of
this that modern scholars make no reference to Giraldus.

A word should be added regarding the other possibility, that Giraldus
used a florilegium. It is probable that John used mainly excerpt MSS
(cf. Schaarschmidt, “Johannes Sarisberiensis in seinem Verhiltniss zur kl.
Litteratur,” Rhein. Museum, XIV [1859], 221, and my paper “Petronius,
Poggio and John of Salisbury,” Class. Philol., XI [1916], 19), and it is
even more probable that Giraldus used a florilegium if he had access to
any Petronius MS. The evidence is scanty, but so far as it goes it contra-
dicts this theory. It should, however, be noted that Giraldus couples the
name of Petronius directly with the quotation, and H. Owen (Gerald the
Welshman, p. 97, note) assures us that Giraldus “usually acknowledges his
quotations.”” The whole question of the place of the florilegia in the history
of the text-traditions of classical authors needs further study, and perhaps
the answer to a particular point should be reserved until this has been done.
A more complete investigation of Giraldus’ acquaintance with Latin liter-
ature would be welcome.

In any case, whether Giraldus got his quotation from Fulgentius or
from a MS. containing Petronius, this item should be restored to the list
of testimonia to Petronius; subsequent editors should consider whether the
readings in Fulgentius should carry any weight; and the possibility of a
— between the authors of the florilegia and Fulgentius kept in
mind.

Evan T. SaGe,
University of Pittsburgh.

We
em,
OF
t of
my
ions
e of
ibly
ani-
and
the 3
cal
by
‘irst,
|, an
ge is
577),
3; 80
vais,
lgate
.
us is
etro- ag
if as-
n the

H
a

206 Notes

ADVERSARIA PETRARCHIANA

AN important contribution to Petrarch studies has been made by Paul
Piur’s Petrarca: ‘Buch ohne Namen’ und die Pépstliche Kurie (Halle:
Niemeyer, 1925). Of the excellence and utility of this very scholarly book
I have elsewhere written.1 What I should like to emphasize here is the
need of further investigation into the condition of Petrarch’s Latin text,
and to that end I wish to discuss a few passages typical of those which in
my opinion require correction, and which can be emended without further
reference to MSS authority.

The 17th letter closes with the following words (ed. cit., p. 228):

Illud tibi pergratum, mihi vel invidiosum affuit solamen, quod inter tantas
vitiorum tenebras ‘quatuor magnis illis quidem viris velut totidem lucidissimis te
sideribus usum’ scribis, quos nescio an auorum crimen (ipsos enim optimos inte-
gerrimosque hominum novi) an que fallacissima vite spes an que Fortune violentia
tristisque necessitas ibi detineat. Quare permitte, queso, ut quod in animo est, vel
in ameno sermone explicem quasi, inquam, in cloaca solis radios et loci simul ob-
scenitatem omnem suo lumine nudantes et circumfusis sordibus inaccessos.

The last sentence seems defective in meaning and in grammar: quare has
no logical pertinence, the function of both vel and quasi is inapparent;
amenus sermo is rather arbitrarily taken to be “in einem Gedicht.” It is
difficult to imagine the poet establishing an analogy between quod in
animo est and in cloaca (grammatically the cloaca ought to correspond to
the amenus sermo). All this is remedied by removing the period before
quare; by reading with many and good MSS quasi instead of quare; and by
making one word of in ameno (the adjective inameno is used by Petrarch;
see among others Epistle 14, p. 210, 1. 10).

Then the logical relation of the last sentence to what precedes becomes
clear: vel is used in its regular meaning; inquam instead of an odd intrusion
appears in its frequent function of a resumptive stressing of the repeated
word, and we are not compelled to call a hypothetical invective against
the corruption of Avignon an amenus sermo. The text so emended would
yield the following meaning: The poet has been saying that his correspon-
dent is fortunate in that he has four noble companions in his tainted abode,
“as though . . . guasi — permit me, pray, to express my thought by an
unlovely phrase (inameno sermone) — as though, I say, they [these four
men] were rays of the sun shining down upon a sewer, exposing with their
light all the foulness of the place and yet remaining unsullied by the
overflowing filth.” One might object in this revised reading to the cacoph-
ony of quasi, permitte queso. Yet this combination of sounds is not infre-
quent. See among others, Epistle 2 (p. 170, 1. 10) queso, quis.

1 To appear shortly in the Romanic Review.

|
t
de
is
| et
| th
| be
| th
he
|
use
the
spi
aru
ni
|
|
| ‘pu
| repl
| bot]
| Low
| obvi
| (
|
| tion
| of th

Notes 207

The next Epistle likewise seems to be in need of emendation and re-
vision. We read (pp. 232-33) the following characterization of the digni-

taries of Avignon:

Tam calidi tamque precipites in Venerem senes sunt. Tanta eos etatis et status
et virium cepit oblivio. Sic in libidines inardescunt, sic in omne ruunt dedecus
quasi omnis eorum gloria non in cruce Cristi sit, sed in commessationibus et ebrie-
tatibus et que has sequuntur in cubilibus impudicitiis. Sic fugientem manu retra-
hunt iuuentam atque hoc unum senectutis ultime lucrum putant ea facere que
juuenes non auderent. Hos animos et hos nervos tribuit hinc Bacchus indomitus,
hine orientalium uis baccharum. O ligustici et campani palmites, o dulces arun-
dines et indice nigrantes arbustule ad honestas delitias et comoditates hominum
create, in quos usus et quantam animarum pernitiem clademque uerti:nini! Spectat
hec Satan ridens atque in pari tripudio delectatus interque decrepitos ac puella
arbiter sedens stupet plus illos agere quam se hortari.

In the first place, it is to be remarked that in cubilibus impudicitiis
does not seem possible grammatically. Had the editor recalled that this line
isa quotation from St Paul’s Ad Rom. (non in commessationibus et ebri-
etatibus non in cubilibus et impudicitiis), he would, it seems, have accepted
the reading of the Florentine MS. (F of the editor) and have inserted et
between cubilibus and impudicitiis. In the reading and interpretation of
the next sentence, the editor seems to have missed the point. Petrarch is
here speaking not of one sole aphrodisiac but of two: wine and spices
(pepper and cloves); therefore baccharum does not mean ‘Bacchantes,’ but
it is instead the genitive plural of baca (berry). Therefore also indice is not
used as Dr Piur has it, “mit Beziehung auf den Beinamen des Bacchus
imperator indicus,” for Bacchus does not come in question here, Indic being
the standing epithet of the ‘indica messis,’ of the berries that fill ‘the
spiced Indian air.’ Palmites are then indeed the grape vines; but dulces
arundines translate the dolce cannella (“sweet cinnamon”); and in indice
nigrantes arbuscule (sic) we must see black pepper or some such spice.

Further on in the same sentence, impari tripudio of Vat. and Gr., seems
demanded by the sense instead of in pari tripudio; for Petrarch here is
emphasizing the ridiculous unevenness of ages, the ‘decrepitos’ and the
‘puellas.” And finally the periods after sunt and after oblivio should be
replaced, it seems to me, by some mark of punctuation which would indicate
both the continuity of the sentence and the matching of the correlatives.
Lower down in the same page (I. 18) where we have et si (two words)
obviously we should read etsi, one word.

On the previous page (p. 232) in the sentence, “ Taceo utriusque pestis
artifices et concursantes pontificum thalamis proxenetas,” it might be ques-
tioned whether Petrarch would construe concursantes with thalamis in view
of the Ciceronian “‘concursare lecticula mecum” and “concursare omnium

by
.
4
r
le
0
r
r
e
5 |
‘
’

208 Notes

mortalium non modo lectos verum etiam grabatos,”’ and other similar ex.
amples of the use of the accusative with concursare.

In Epistle 16 (p. 188, 1. 17) the consistent MS. reading is: “Sentio,
rediit ab inferis Julianus (the apostate), etc.” Here sentio is awkward, to
say the least, both from the grammatical and from the logical point of view,
and it seems as though we ought to get from some MS. the more likely
reading: “‘Sentis rediit ab inferis Julianus, etc.,” an echo of the Virgilian
description of hell — loca senta situ (Aen., vi, 462).

In the sentence: “Furiis illos ultricibus et diris suorum scelerum aculeis
laniandos linque” (Epistle 16, p. 218, 1. 4), aculeis seems untenable. Mang.
ling (laniare) is not done with needles (aculeis). What Petrarch must have
written here is aeculeis for eculeis or equuleis, the well-known tortures of the
‘rack-horse’ which Petrarch mentions in the Vita Solitaria and elsewhere.

In the first Epistle (p. 166, ll. 14, 15) the sentence “‘Heu quanto felicius
patrio terram sulcasset aratro puam scalmum piscatorium ascendisset”
seems strangely worded. Scalmum consistently means ‘thole-pin, oar-peg’
in the classical authors, in Mediaeval Latin, and in Italian (schermo, scalmo).
The phrase ascendere scalmum therefore appears odd, whereas scapha pisca-
toria is a fairly common expression; (see Justin and others). It might be
well to consider the elements of the case. The same perhaps might be said
for canibus maritimis a few lines below, instead of the common canibus
marinis.

Occasionally we find an et where perhaps ut would be required. So in
Epistle 16 (p. 218, 1. 22): ““Tace,’ inquit, ‘et si verum est non simus auc-
tores.’”” The word non which, as the sentence now stands seems ungram-
matical, would fit in the phrase correctly if we read ut si verum est, instead
of et si verum est. In the same way a little farther on (foot of p. 220), for
et si Cristum colis..., wereadutsi....

Adherence to the tradition in the misplacing of periods frequently
vitiates the sense of the sentence. A few examples will suffice. We read in
Epistle 4 (p. 183, 1. 28): “Tam mira et tam repentina mutatio rerum fuit.
Septem enim mensium non amplius spatio frena reipublice tenuit, ut vix
ab origine mundi maius aliquid attentatum rear, etc.” Grammar and sense
compel us to remove the period between fuit and septem to construe the
clause septem—tenuit as parenthetical, to be included between commas or
parentheses, taking ut before viz as correlative to tam before mira; so that
the sentence means: “So marvelous and sudden was the change (for he did
not hold power more than seven months) that in my view from the begir-
ning of the world down, nothing greater seems ever to have been at-
tempted.”

In Epistle 15 (p. 215, 1. 18) we read: “Tu uero, meus hortator, quid de
te statuis? Quamquam quid statuisse profuerit, nusquam minus cogitats

2.39 a

4
4
H
§
{
i}
}
|
|

Notes 209

respondent.” . . . which does not seem to make sense. If we put an inter-
rogation mark after profuerit, we have the required thought and construc-
tion. “And yet (quamquam) what’s the use of planning? Here less than
anywhere else in the world things come out as you plan them.”

Likewise in Epistle 12 (p. 205, 1. 10) the sentence, “Et quoniam nobis
propter inenarrabilem misericordiam tuam hoc fiducie prebuisti, ut uascula
terrea atque fragilia adversus eternum figulum disceptemus. Certe, etc.,”
cannot stand; the period after disceptemus is to be removed and the sense
continued into the main clause “‘multo . . . ulcisceris.”

There are other passages with defective readings because of erroneous
punctuation. One in Epistle 9 (p. 196, ]. 18); another in Epistle 15 (p. 216);
another in Epistle 6 (p. 189, ll. 9, 10), where rebusque . . . explicitis is an
ablative absolute.

Among the minor and obvious slips and misprints are (p. 196, 1. 18):
“rident labiis, corde gemunt, ludunt interius intus tremunt,” where in place
of interius we should read exterius (inner worry but outward assurance).
On p. 213, 1. 33, instead of tua we should have sua. There are similar
typographical errors on pages 181, 27, 183, 3, 206, 20, etc. ;

In Epistle 6 near the end we read, “‘Nulla inter Herodotum et Thuci-
didem lis erit vero ‘omnia consonant,’ inquit Aristotiles,” and Dr Piur’s
note: “das Zitat bleibt nachzuweisen.” The quotation however should
begin with vero, which is here a substantive and not a connective, and then
we have the very words of the well-known sentence “vero quidem enim
omnia consonant,” by which the antiqua translatio rendered the phrase
pev yap adnOet wavra (Ethics, i, 8, 1098b). In connection with
the matter of quotation, it should be remarked that Dr Piur’s practice
of indicating the borrowed sentences of Petrarch by italicizing them is very
praiseworthy. Much he has done towards identifying the different patches
of mosaic, but still more work is needed. A hasty reading reveals a few such
omissions as, for example, the well-known optime manebimus (p. 166), pro-
vinciarum dominam (p. 168), ineptis, insanis (p. 169). On page 193 surely
we have quotations in the Biblical “in adiutorium nostrum intende” and
“festina,” and lower down the page in “pharetrata Semiramis” from
Juvenal (ii, 108), and on page 195 in degeneri metu from Lucan. There are
many scriptural quotations which are not identified, very likely through
the fault of the printer. Such as (p. 206) in conspectu omnium qui ceperunt
(Ps. 105, 46); and such as (p. 207) in compedibus . . . vinctos in mendicitate

et ferro (Ps. 104 and 106); and on the same page scraps from Ps. 59, 5 and
from Ps. 118, 116. There is perfecto odio on page 223; pretium sanguinis on
page 226; and evasisti, erupisti on page 236, which should have been itali-
cized, and on this same page there is a quotation from Deut. 21, 8. Idolorum
servitus on page 231 is ascribed by Piur to St Paul’s Col. 3, 5; but there we

X-
0, |
to
g-
ve
h
e
us
”
’
0).
be
sid
mus
in
m-
for
tly
in
it.
nse
the
or
hat
did
ata
5 ;

210 Notes

have simulacrorum servitus; the phrase is borrowed rather from St Paul’s
Ephes. 5, 5: quod est idolorum servitus.

The above enumeration is by no means meant to be exhaustive. The
examples have been chosen rather to afford an indication of the kind of
work that perhaps is still to be done. I submit them to the attention of
the learned German scholar so deserving of the admiration and praise of
all those who are interested in the history of the fourteenth century.

Dino Bicone1art,
Columbia University.

THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY
OF AMERICA

Tue Annual Meeting of the MepiarvaL AcapEMy oF AMERICA will be held
pursuant to the By-Laws of the AcapEmy on April 30, 1927, at the building
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28 Newbury Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, at ten o’clock in the morning. Besides the election
of officers and other current business, there will be the annual Presidential
Address, ‘‘The Latin Literature of Sport,’”’ by Professor Charles Homer
Haskins, and a paper in French, illustrated by lantern slides, on ‘‘Con-
stantinople in the Twelfth Century,” by Professor Charles Diehl of the
University of Paris, a Corresponding Fellow of the Acapemy. Members
who desire to bring guests are requested to notify the Executive Secretary,

t!
a
E
ac
ev
ter
| a
sal
| ay
pla
inv
sior
tex:
ing
Eng
look
by
unit
beer
artic
each
an

REVIEWS

Merret Dare Cuivss, ed., Christ and Satan, an Old English Poem edited with Introduction,
Notes, and Glossary (Yale Studies in English, LXX), New Haven: Yale University Press,
1925. Pp. lx + 175.

Ir is an open secret that ‘mediaeval’ looking texts are not very readily
accepted by modern publishers. Hence, it is matter for congratulation
that the high-minded institution known as ‘Yale Studies in English’ has
generously taken the Old-English Christ and Satan under its sheltering
wings, thereby adding the seventieth number to its enviable record of
scholarly publications.

That a modern edition of this text was greatly needed cannot be doubt-
ful to any one who bears in mind that the latest editions available were
those of Grein and Wiilker. Grein, that rare, retiring scholar, to whom
all students of Old English owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude, had
not seen the MS. itself, for it had never been his good fortune to visit
England and to examine the treasures of the Bodleian Library. As to
Wiilker’s revision of the texts contained in Grein’s famous Bibliothek, it is
admittedly far from satisfactory; it is, in fact, a constant source of disap-
pointment and irritation. Besides, no annotated edition of this poem had
ever been prepared.

The present edition aims to be complete in the accepted sense of the
term. A critical text with variants, full notes, glossary, bibliography, and
an exhaustive introduction are provided, so that it will no longer be neces-
sary at every point to consult a number of books and papers dealing with
a variety of general or specific questions.

It was hardly to be expected that any strikingly new views would be
placed before us in the Introduction. But the critical survey of previous
investigations, together with the editor’s presentation of his own conclu-
sions, is an eminently satisfactory basis for approaching the study of the
text. Mr Clubb shows a commendable spirit of conservatism in content-
ing himself with results which are not as definite as some students of Old-
English literature might wish them to be, but which are all that could be
looked for under the circumstances. By accepting the title first given
by Grein, Christ and Satan, the editor indicates that he believes in the
unity of the poem. He shows the insufficiency of the arguments that have
been advanced for the opposite view, and, in explanation of the lack of
articulation and consistency found between the main divisions and within
each of them, he offers the suggestion that the transmitted text represents
an “unimproved first draft” which did not receive the benefit of a much

211

>
4
=
4
a

212 Reviews

needed thorough revision. This felicitous observation, it will be seen,
serves to account for the strange textual imperfections which render very
difficult an adequate interpretation of so many passages. For a full ex-
position of Mr Clubb’s theory concerning the evolution of Christ and
Satan the reader must be referred to pages liv ff.

No immediate sources of any of the main parts — viz., 1, The Laments
of the Angels; 2, The Harrowing of Hell and its Sequel; 3, The Tempta-
tion of Christ—can be admitted to have been discovered, although
various ultimate sources (such as the Gospel of Nicodemus) and homi-
letic parallels are easily pointed out. Of the latter, abundant and illumi-
nating examples are given in the comprehensive notes on the text.

That the dialect of the poem was originally Anglian has been fully
demonstrated by Frings (ZfdPh. XLV, 1913, 216-37). The West-Saxon
forms introduced by the second scribe and especially by the corrector
throw remarkably clear light on the history of the text which as early as
the eleventh century was placed in connection with the first part (or,
Book I) of the Coder Junius XI. It appears “that at some later time in
the eleventh century the two sections were treated as one book, because
there are traces in the Genesis of the hand of the late West-Saxon Cor-
rector who was so active in Christ and Satan” (p. xv). However, no pos-
sible relation can be established between the poem itself and the so-called
Czdmonian literature, the parallels discoverable between the former and
Genesis A being in fact exceedingly slight. On the other hand, we are con-
tinually reminded of the Cynewulfian cycle, in matters of diction, style,
and general tone or temper, and it may be called a fair inference that our
poem — an unfinished one — arose some time after “the period of Cyne-
wulf’s literary activity.” To name a fairly definite date is, of course, a
hazardous matter, especially as the chronological tests based on certain
linguistic and metrical features have of late — not without reason — lost
a good deal of their supposedly authoritative significance. The dating
suggested, viz., between 790 and 830 a.p., is not unreasonable, although
some critics might consider even this cautious expression of opinion some-
what too definite.

To prepare an Old-English text which is marred by so many imper-
fections is perhaps a tempting task, but not a very grateful one when the
editor is conservatively inclined. Mr Clubb has endeavored to produce an
intelligible text with as little change as possible and, at the same time, to
provide helpful interpretational and illustrative matter in the shape of
explanatory Notes. His rich annotations covering more than ninety pages
are, indeed, the most impressive feature of the book. Sometimes, it is true,
he seems to have been carried by his enthusiasm to greater lengths of dis-
cussion than was necessary.

| h
0
b
|
i
| el
wi
|
| sh
| of
tio
ist
| per
| me
| rat

—

Reviews 213

Great care has been taken to secure textual accuracy. By the use of
a rotograph the exact MS. readings could be definitely established. Thus,
to mention one interesting case, it was possible — for Professor Menner —
to decipher the letters erased after sceada in v. 57 and in this way to discover
the entirely satisfactory reading sceadana sum. The variants are given
very fully. thus enabling us to gather at a glance the history of textual
criticism. Perhaps, by a slightly more systematic presentation, their use-
fulness could have been increased. As a matter of fact, it is not quite easy
in some instances to make out the real MS. version. Also the employment
of brackets in the text to indicate both alterations and additions of words
or letters is of questionable value; it was certainly unnecessary to set the
use of italics apart for those extremely rare cases in which the order of
letters has been changed. Whenever alterations made by the ever-meddling
Corrector have been placed in the text (in twenty instances only), this is
shown by the — typographically somewhat too conspicuous — device of
heavy underscoring. But ordinarily the reading of the uncorrected MS.
has been taken as the basis. As a result of this procedure, it may be noted,
the important form sic (sic changed by the Corrector to seoc) in v. 275,
which seems to have escaped the attention of grammarians, is now dis-
played to full advantage in the text itself. That an adjectival formation
(pointing to a —li suffix) sicle had been brought to light by M. Forster
(Herrig’s Archiv CX XIX, 1912, 21, n. 6), may be mentioned in this cor
nection.

An altogether smooth text of the Old-English poem was, of course, out
of the question. Certain cruces still remain, some of them to be considered
hopeless. At times, also, the editor seems to have been a little too tolerant
of textual shortcomings. Chiefly as an indication of the interest evoked
by this timely edition, I beg to offer a few miscellaneous comments:
V. 59. wéndes 3% Surh wuldor Set bi woruld ahtest. The only meanings
assigned to wuldor in the Glossary are ‘glory,’ ‘heaven.’ But Surh wuldor
evidently denotes ‘vaingloriously,’ cf. tdel gylp, v. 254; see B.-T. under
wuldor and wuldor-full.—V. 78-80: the punctuation inherited from a suc-
cession of editors is in need of correction: v. 79b, ne bid swele feger dréam
should be placed in parenthesis or between dashes. There are a number
of other passages in which my preference would be for a different punctua-
tion. It must be admitted, of course, that it will often be difficult to agree
on the best mode of punctuating, the more so as our modern stylistic feeling
is not necessarily a safe guide for properly judging of Old-English sentences,
periods, and paragraphs. — V. 130: ic eom limwestmum pet ic geliitian ne
meg; here an explanatory note would have been very much in order. —
V. 147: biaitan pam anum pe hé agan nyle is translated in the Notes: “but
rather those whom he will not have.” Is this permissible? The difficulty

ly
D
aS
=
In
se
r-
nd
>
le,
ur
1e-
ost
gh
ne-
__|

214 Reviews

is not in the simple uninflected infinitive (dgan) after t6, but in the use of
in connection with nyle. Sievers’s zu eigen (adjective) wollen is entirely
different. — V. 213—14a: there can be little doubt that we should read
fégler|re land, bonne péos folde séo,/wlitig and wynsum. The is following
in the MS. after seo is a disturbing element; this was seen by the Corrector,
who further expanded it into per is. — V. 260b: it is hard to believe that
the poet meant to say hé is dna [riht] Cyning instead of... an riht...
(Cosijn); the scribal error in this case is easily accounted for. — V. 512f.
and ic eft up becim, éce dréamas/té halgum Drihine. . . . The grammatical
observation that #6 “will have the sense of ‘from,’ as in 686” is not to the
point. The case of foh hider t6 mé/burh . . . 686 rests on a different basis,
Nor will it do to consider et v. 338 equivalent to 46. It is equally puzzling
to find in the Glossary ‘obtain’ given as one of the meanings of becuman.,
Thorpe’s rendering ‘and I again on high obtained eternal joys, with the
holy Lord’ was at best a paraphrase; did he have in mind German bekom-
men? — V. 539, note: the remark on Deor (5 and) 6 is misleading; v. 5
has postpositive, accented on (hine . . . on), whereas the ordinary preposi-
tion on is used in v. 6.— The ingenious explanation of the unchanged
v. 546, though offering helpful information, is not likely to prove accept-
able. — V. 575: (Iiidas) sé Se @r on tifre torhine gesalde/Drihten H@lend:
this construction is to be kept apart from that seen in v. 577 f., hé bebohte
Bearn Wealdendes/on seolfres sinc (‘he sold the Son of the Lord for silver’).
Strange as this mention of tifer seems, the expression can hardly mean
anything but ‘who had (delivered, or) betrayed the Savior as a sacrifice.’—
V. 597: it would be better to place megen in the first half of the line. —
V. 632: the Corrector’s /gdad is certainly preferable to the original lea%a®,
which is even grammatically objectionable. We cannot believe that an
invitation was meant.

As a specimen studii frugiferi and as an addition to the working library
of students of Old English this new edition deserves our hearty welcome.

Fr.
The University of Minnesota.

J. P. Christopher, ed., S. Aureli Augustini Hipponiensis episcopi De Catechizandis Rudibus
liber unus, translated with an Introduction and Commentary (The Catholic University
of America Patristic Studies, Vol. VIII), Washington: The Catholic University of America,
1926. Pp. xxii + 365. $2.00.

Exactly trained classical scholars have long been waiting for an edition
of a Latin Christian classic, in which the subject-matter and the language
alike should be treated with the same care and respect that have long been
shown to the pagan classics, for an editio omnibus numeris absoluta, in fact,
with English notes. One has only to contrast the present work with the

|
|
H
|
j

Reviews 215

paltry edition of the same treatise by the late Rev. W. Y. Fausset, favor-
ably known by a commentary on Cicero’s Pro Cluentio, to see what I mean.
The two editions are as the poles asunder, and it may be hoped that
Fausset’s book, which for want of something better has enjoyed a totally
undeserved success, will now be relegated to the dustbin. The present
work is in origin a doctoral thesis, but the author has subjected it to re-
peated revision and expansion, and the gratifying result is now before us.
It will enhance the reputation which these Patristic Studies, issued under
the capable editorship of Professor Roy J. Deferrari, already enjoy.

The De Catechizandis Rudibus is peculiarly fitted to introduce the reader
of Latin classics such as Cicero and Quintilian to Christian Latin literature;
for it deals with the topic of education, and is by a master like them, and
it is at the same time not overburdened with matters which only the theo-
logian can appreciate. The rudes referred to are in fact those who, desiring
to become Christians, come before a Christian teacher to be taught the
elements of the Faith. It is primarily addressed to a deacon of Carthage,
named Deogratias, who proffered to the great bishop a request for help in
his task, and received the treatise De Catechizandis Rudibus as a reply to
his benefit and ours.

Dr Christopher opens his edition with an Augustinian bibliography,
which for comprehensiveness is unsurpassed. Here and elsewhere through-
out the book, while showing himself perfectly loyal to his own church, he
has drawn help from writers of all possible races and creeds. Without being
diffuse, the Introduction is entirely adequate and treats of the following
topics: ‘Catechesis and St Augustine’s Treatise De Catechizandis Rudibus,’
‘Occasion and Date of Composition,’ ‘Contribution to Catechetics,’ ‘The
Knowledge and Use of this Treatise in later Writers,’ ‘Historical and
Literary Importance,’ ‘Sources,’ ‘Style,’ and ‘Place in Literature.’ All
this is followed by the text, with the English translation opposite. The
text agrees almost entirely with the current Benedictine text. It is im-
probable that much serious improvement can be made on it, to judge by
an extended examination I have made of a twelfth-century MS in the
British Museum. The translation is much superior to that of E. Phillips
Barker (London, 1912), the only other with which I am familiar, and it is
an excellent piece of work. The notes are everything that could be desired,
the balance having been very nicely held between meagreness and super-
abundance. I should like particularly to refer to Dr Christopher’s prac-
tice of printing the illustrative quotations instead of giving mere references,
and also to the abundant and apt parallels from Cicero and other early
writers, which show that the editor has mastered the writings of the classical
period. Himself thoroughly expert in German, he might perhaps have on
occasion given his quotations from German scholars in English, unless it be

-
re
5,
ry
e.

ta.
ity
Ca,

ct,
he

¥)

216 Reviews

that knowledge of German is more widespread among likely American
students of the book than is the case in Great Britain, where I hope the
book will be widely used. An appendix on ‘African Latinity,’ which is
very much to the pcint, is followed by the brief, admirable indexes, on
‘subject,’ ‘scripture texts,’ and ‘Latin words and phrases in the Com-
mentary.’ All these are a model of how the thing should be done.

I will not burden this review with parallels I have collected during
over thirty years study of Augustine, or with notes I have written in an
unpublished commentary on the same book, but will draw attention to
one or two oversights, which might be corrected in a second edition:
p. xvii, 1. 20, for ‘altchristlichen’ read ‘altkirchlichen’; p. xxi, |. 5, for
‘Weldon,’ read ‘Welldon’; |. 13, for ‘Lexicographie,’ read ‘Lexikographie’;
1. 29, for ‘Theologische’ read ‘Theologischer’; it would also have been
better to use different symbols for the ‘Revue Biblique’ and the ‘Revue
Bénédictine’; p. 128, 1. 8, Christians did sometimes use credulitas in the
good sense; p. 130, 1. 11 from foot, for ‘121’ read ‘1921’; p. 198, 1. 8, for
‘Reid’ read ‘Wilkins’; p. 220 (twice), for rigos read rigos; p. 250, 1. 14,
from foot, for ‘Tyrell,’ read ‘Tyrrell’; p. 264 (last line), 288, 304, 329,
misprints in the Greek; p. 284, cum tota fiducia is really part of Augustine’s
text of Acts; p. 314, 1. 5, for ‘11’ read ‘2’; p. 325, 1. 9, for ‘Maykoff’ read
‘Mayhoff’; p. 328, 1. 15 from foot, for ‘obnulibet,’ read ‘obnubilet’; p. 331,
the pluralizing of abstract nouns is nowhere more frequent than in Cicero
himself; p. 343, for ‘Funck, F. X.’ read ‘Funk, F. X.,’ and for ‘Nazianzen’
read ‘Nazianzus.’

A. SouTErR,
Aberdeen, Scotland.

Edward Hutton, The Franciscans in England, 1224-1538, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1926.

Tue early Franciscan province of England was exceptionally fortunate in
having an intelligent chronicler, Thomas of Eccleston, who, in his De
Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, wrote a good account of the
introduction and of the expansion of the order in England during the first
thirty-five years. For the following period up to the sixteenth century,
there is also a considerable source-material in public and private records,
which has been carefully gathered in valuable monographs published in
recent years.! Following Eccleston and the recent monographs, Mr
Hutton presents now to the public a general history of the Franciscans in

1 Weare, The Friars Minors of Bristol, 1893. Kingsford, Grey Friars of London (British
Society of Franciscan Studies, VII). A. G. Little. Grey Friars in Ozford, (Oxf. Hist. Soc.,
1892), and Studies in Franciscan History, 1917. 3. Sever, The English Franciscans under Henry
VIII, 1915. C. Cotton, The Grey Friars of Canterbury, 1924, and the other publications of
the Br. Soc. Franc. Studies.

Sed

4
|
|
|

Reviews 217

England down to the Reformation. All that is known about the Franciscan
“custodiae” and convents of the various English cities has been faithfully
collected by the author whose book, from this point of view, leaves very
little or nothing to be desired. It is not his fault if no important addition
is made to what was already known of the Franciscan history of England,
and undoubtedly his book, in which the results of all previous researches
are brought together, will be highly appreciated by both students and
general readers.

It does not seem, however, that the author is quite successful in his
attempt, upon the background of the general Franciscan history, to set
in its right place and in the right proportion the history of the English
Franciscans. For the early period he follows with excessive confidence the
narrative of Eccleston, whose work, although one of the most valuable
sources of general Franciscan history, is not unbiased by personal preju-
dices and party interests. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand why
Mr Hutton is a little unfair to Brother Elias, why he exaggerates the
importance of the part played by the English friars in Elias’ defeat and
deposition, and above all why he has wrongly identified the opponents of
Brother Elias with the group of the genuine representatives of the original
Franciscan program. Brother Elias was the real founder, or at least the
first organizer, of the Franciscan order, as such, and as Mr Hutton ac-
knowledges, he was the instrument of the Roman Church and of Pope
Gregory IX. Undoubtedly it was not the wish of St Francis to organize
his followers after the fashion of a monastic order; he resisted this tend-
ency as long as he could, but finally he lost the control of the movement.
To regret the failure of the original program of St Francis is natural, and
many pages of charming literature have been written to deplore the fate
of the evangelical message of the saint who had chosen for his bride Lady
Poverty. But to condemn altogether as traitors to St Francis those who
worked at the organization of the Order is a different matter. This was
after all the only way by which at least part of the Franciscan spirit and
traditions could survive. A Franciscan order with no regular organization
and depending upon the spirit of unbounded charity, of simplicity and
spontaneous obedience on the part of the friars, as St Francis had wished,
would have become, as it almost did become, a horde of unruly beggars
and fanatics and a scourge of Christian civilization.

Brother Elias undoubtedly sinned against the spirit of the Franciscan
tradition; he crushed without mercy the party of Brother Leo, who rep-
resented the primitive Franciscan ideal, he ruled the order with an iron
hand, he acted against the Franciscan principles in building the monu-
mental Church of Assisi and in forcibly collecting money for this purpose.
But those who successfully opposed him and brought about his fall in

|
=

)

> 4
sf)

J an

218 Reviews

1239 were not the representatives of the strictest observance and of the
original Franciscan group, as Mr Hutton assumes, when he states that
Elias’ fall “was the victory of St Francis’ idea over the opposition of the
Papacy” (p. 121). The opposition to Elias came first from the group of
learned Franciscan doctors and teachers in the universities, mostly priests
who had joined the order and were themselves wholly in favor of the organ-
ization of the Franciscans in a form similar to that of a monastic order
with fixed rules and privileges. Alexander of Hales, John of La Rochelle,
Richard Rufus, Haymo of Faversham, Jordan of Giano were all learned
Franciscans whose ideas concerning the organization of the order were not
different from those of Brother Elias. Their opposition to the latter arose
from personal reasons. Elias’ arrogance and absolutism and his violation
of the rule about poverty in his private life were the main complaints
made against him. As for his absolutism in ruling the order, it has been
remarked that the rule of 1223 did not assign definite limits to the authority
of the minister-general; it was only after Elias’ deposition that measures
were taken to make impossible in the future the exercise of an autocratic
power in the order. It is not historically exact to say that Elias “ruled
without reference to the rule” (p. 111), at least in so far as concerns the
letter of the rule of 1223, though that form of absolutism was against the
Franciscan spirit. One of the strongest reasons of the opposition against
Elias was undoubtedly the fact that the large group of learned friars who
were in priestly orders disliked to be put on the same level with the lay
members and to be autocratically ruled by a minister-general who was
himself a lay brother. Eccleston betrays his feelings when at the election
of Albert of Pisa, Elias’ successor, he remarks: ‘‘Igitur celebrata missa a
ministro generali, dixit idem fratribus qui non erant de capitulo: Jam audistis
missam quae unquam celebrata fuerit in ordine isto a ministro generali” (I,
243). And a further and clearer evidence of this hostility against the lay
brothers of the order is found in the decision taken by the general chapter
under the generalship of Brother Haymo of Faversham (1240-1244) by
which the lay brothers were excluded from holding offices in the order (Ana-
lecta Franciscana, III, 251). Salimbene even affirms with joy that the lay
brothers “processu temporis merito ad nihilum sunt redacti, quia eorum
receptio quasi totaliter est prohibita.”” Haymo of Faversham and his group,
far from representing the original Franciscan tradition of a lay order of
mendicants, were the instruments of its transformation into an ecclesiastical
order, and their victory over Elias, far from being the victory of St Francis’
ideas over the Papacy, served the Papacy much better than ever Brother
Elias did. As a matter of fact, while under the generalship of Elias few
privileges were granted to the order, under Haymo, on the contrary, they
were showered on the Franciscans by the Pope, and upon the friar’s re

|
|
(
]
iif
a
a
te
al
|
Ww
| th
of

Reviews 219

quest; a thing which had been severely forbidden by St Francis. The
English friars of the early period were remarkable for their faithfulness to
the law of poverty; their leaders, Albert of Pisa and Haymo of Faversham,
who were in succession ministers-genera] of the order after Elias, represented
on this question of poverty a more conservative tendency than that of
Elias, but they cannot be considered as representing the original Franciscan
tradition, which was against the monasticization of the movement, against
the acquisition of ecclesiastical privileges, and against the formation of a
learned priestly controlling class within the order. The real party of strict
observance came to power, for a short period, only with the election of
John of Parma (1247-1257), whom Brother Giles, one of the few survivors of
St Francis’ first companions, greeted with the words: “‘ Welcome Father,
but you come too late” (Franz Ehrle, “Die ‘historia septem tribulatio-
nem ordinis minorum’ des fr. Angelus de Clarino,”’ Archiv fiir Litt. u. Kir-
chengesch. d. Mittelalters, I1, 1886, 263).

On various other points Mr Hutton is misled by Eccleston’s hatred of
Elias, as for instance in stating that “‘so jealous was Elias and so fearful
for the future of his ideas that three days before the time duly arranged
for the translation of the body of St Francis to the new basilica of Assisi
he seized the body and secretly buried it in the new Church where it was
not discovered till 1818” (p. 118). As Lempp (Frére Elie de Cortone, 1901,
86 ff.) has remarked, the reasons which led Elias to carry in secrecy and
to hide in the church he had built the body of St Francis, disappointing
not only the immense crowd which had gathered at Assisi for the circum-
stance, but also the Pope, under whose authority the arrangements had
been made, are rather obscure. But no one can see how hiding the body
of St Francis and incurring the Pope’s and the friars’ wrath could have
helped Elias in the realization of his ideas. The explanation hinted by the
author of the Speculum Vitae who says that Elias acted “humano timore
ductus” seems to suggest that Elias feared for the safety of the body of
St Francis on account of the immense excited crowd which might have
made frenzied attempts to secure relics of the great saint. Deplorable ex-
cesses had happened on similar occasions and only one year later, in 1231,
a bloody battle was fought in Padua over the body of St Anthony. It has
also been suggested that Elias, who at the death of St Francis was the first
to announce to the world the miracle of the “stigmata,” now feared that
an examination of the body would fail to corroborate the miracle.

The general Franciscan Chapter which elected Elias to the generalship
in 1282, was held according to Eccleston at Rieti, and Mr Hutton agrees
with him; but according to the more reliable account of Jordan of Giano,
the Chapter gathered in Rome, though it is not impossible that a session
of it might have taken place in Rieti, following the Pope in his changes of

he =
at
he
of
ts 4
er

le,
ed
ot

se
on
its =
en
ty
res
tic
ed
he
ast

ho
ay
on

1a
his
(I,
lay
ter

by
od
lay
um
up,
of

cal

is’
her
ew 4

re-

220 Reviews

residence during that year. The author makes also a rapid excursion into
the field of mediaeval philosophy and theology in connection with the
intellectual activities of the English Franciscans (Oxford and the Friars,
Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, Ockham). As it was perhaps inevitable in a
work of this character, the treatment of these topics is rather superficial
and often lacks in historical precision and scientific accuracy. The closing
remark of the chapter on Roger Bacon, in which St Francis and Bacon
are brought together as representing in the thirteenth century “the ten-
dency to experimentalism” (St Francis “testing the teaching of the
Gospel by experience,” Bacon “substituting experience for the authority
of Aristotle,” p. 147), is more superficially subtle than historically true.
The dislike and mistrust of the syllogism of the schools which was shared
alike by St Francis and by Bacon was suggested to the former only by
moral reasons, and it involved not only the syllogistic method but the
science and learning in general which he thought were useful and praise-
worthy things in themselves, but very dangerous for those who wished to
attain the ideal of perfection set by him to his followers in the practice of
these three virtues, poverty, humility and simplicity. St Francis did not
object to the admission of learned men into the order, but the only studies
that he would allow them were what he used to call “the spiritual
studies,” a phrase which is explained as follows by a recent apologist of
the Franciscan learning:

Il ne s’agissait pas d’une étude a l’apparat scientifique, d’un cours suivi et
méthodique, de la fréquentation des écoles. L’étude spirituelle se trouva fort res-
treinte et par les conditions trés humbles de la prédication des Fréres et par les
exigences de la pauvreté. Le ministére apostolique des Mineurs était restraint 4 la
prédication de la pénitence. . . . Précher la pénitence s’opposait 4 précher I’ Ecriture.
La prédication morale, tel fut le but que Saint Francois se proposa et la mission
qu’il confia a ses disciples. . . . Pour une prédication si simple, il ne fallait pas une
grande science, et en conséquence, de grandes études. II ne fallait qu’un simple
lecture attentive de I’Ecriture, faite en particulier. L’étude des Fréres serait donc
réduite 4 cette lecture et leurs bibliothéques 4 quelque exemplaire de la Bible et
quelques commentaire des Péres. (L. de Carvalho e Castro, Saint Bonaventure;
Didéal de Saint Frangois et lV euvre de Saint Bonaventure a V'égarde de la science.
Paris: Beauchesne, 1923, pp. 25 ff.)

The scientific development in the Franciscan order was an innovation, an
inevitable and justified innovation, but no less in opposition to the ideals
of St Francis. Bacon’s experimentalism had nothing in common with St
Francis, who never thought of testing the truth of the Gospel, but only of
realizing literally the ideal of moral perfection of the evangelical counsels,
in his own and his disciples’ life. Mr Hutton is rather unduly fond of
impressive rapprochements and generalizations which at a close range
appear without foundation. To call the Black Death “the real barrier

|
|
|

Reviews 221

between the mediaeval and the modern world” may be a good poetical
phrase, but a very poor historical definition. And the reader is not convinced
by the evidence in favor of such an assumption which Mr Hutton finds
in the change of architectural style when (after the epidemic was over)
“men turned again to the sombre and insular gravity of the Perpendicular,
in which lies hid all scepticism of the Renaissance and the modern world”
(p. 179).

It is rather disappointing to notice how little space is given by Mr
Hutton to the important topic of the influence of the Franciscan friars
upon the spiritual religious and social life of the English people. To know
something about it, is at least as important as to know how many donors
contributed to the building of a church or of a convent. But the author has
in part atoned with a good chapter on “Langland, Chaucer, Wyclif and the
Friars,” and in part by sending back his reader to the valuable treatment
of this subject in A. G. Little’s Studies in English Franciscan History,
Manchester: University Press, 1917."

Mr Hutton, who is a man of letters and a writer well-known to the
public, especially for his delightful books on Italy, shows throughout this
book his remarkabie literary qualities, even when he deals with mere
chronicles and dry lists. There are many pages in which the vividness of
style lends a picturesque color to the narrative, others which delight in
warm enthusiasm for the Franciscan spiritual epic, and others which burst
with indignation against those who did not understand or who betrayed,
or even crushed the Franciscan message to the world. Such is the chapter,
“The Royal Supremacy,” in which the stout resistance and the sufferings
of those friars who refused to bow before the tyrannical wishes of Henry
VIII are forcefully described. Mr Hutton is very severe, and rightly so,
upon King Henry. To affirm, however, that “the foundations of the Refor-
mation in England and the cradle of the Anglican Church” are to be found
merely in the “adultery of the king” (p. 240) is to formulate an histori-
cal judgment which is, to say the least, very superficial. Mr Hutton, who
is well acquainted with English history, knows well that no king of England
would have succeeded in turning the English clergy and people away from
their allegiance to Rome if the unwise attempts of Rome to interfere in, or

1 It is unfortunate that several serious misprints were overlooked in the Latin quotations,
as, for instance: “‘entia non sunt multiplicas (sic) sine necessitate” (p. 163), or “‘ante pestam”
(pp. 177 and 178). It would have been advisable to use Eccleston’s text according to the critical
edition of Little (Collection d'études et de documents sur U histoire religieuse et littéraire du M. A.,
Paris: Fishbacher, 1909) which the author evidently knows, rather than according to the
old edition of Brewer (Monum. Franciscana, I, Longman, 1885); the more so since the English
translation made by Fr Cuthbert (of which the author has often availed himself), even in
the second revised edition (St. Louis, 1909), is from the old text.

to
he a
rs,
a
al
ng
on
n-
he
ty
od
by
he
to
of
ot
ies
ial
of
et
les
la jee
re.
on
ne
ole
nc
et
ce.
an
ils
St
of
Is,
of
ge
er
“4

222 Reviews

even to direct, the political affairs of England, made in the preceding cen-
turies, and the ever-increasing demands for contributions and tributes, and
the fiscal method of exacting money, and, last but not least, the system
of pontifical reservation of ecclesiastical benefices and their grant to foreign
exploiters, had not alienated altogether the sympathies of the English
clergy and of the people from Rome. Long before King Henry was born,
Wyclif had outlined the program of the Reformation. The open polyga-
mistic propensities of Henry VIII were only incidental causes which de-
termined the external character of the outburst already prepared and made
inevitable by other and more serious motives. But Mr Hutton is not
unmindful of the Christian precept of forgiveness and with a pious thought
has offered his book to St Francis “for the repose of the soul of Henry VIII,

King of England.”
GerorceE La Prana,

Harvard University.
Henrici Septimellensis Elegia. Scriptores Latini Medii Hivi Italici I. Recensuit, preefatus est,

glossarium atque indices adiecit Aristides Marigo. Padua: A. Draghi, 1926. Pp. 75.

It. lib. 20.

Tuts volume “editum auctoritate et sumptibus R. Academie Patavine,”
will be followed by others of a similar sort if it wins the approval of scholars.
Any one familiar with Professor Marigo’s capacity for dealing with mediae-
val Latin, as shown, for example, in a recent article on the text of Dante’s
De Vulgari Eloquentia (Giornale Storico, LXXXVI, 1925, 289-338), will
approach his edition of the Elegia with high expectations, and will not be
disappointed. If merit determines the reception that this volume receives,
there can, I believe, be no doubt of the continuance of the series.

In the preface the editor discusses the manuscripts of the Elegy. Though
the work was widely circulated in Europe, he has used only Italian manu-
scripts, believing that he would thus furnish an edition perhaps not ulti-
mate, but certainly valuable; the poem was composed in Italy, and Italian
manuscripts of a century after its composition furnish a reliable text.
Fifteen codices have been considered, all of which are described. Five have
been assigned to the first class and made the foundation of the text. A
stemma shows their relation to the original and to the codices of classes
two and three. In the light of the manuscripts, none of the printed editions
are satisfactory.

The next section of the volume, De carmine eiusque scriptore testimonia,
gives quotations relating to the life of Henricus from some of the codices
and from Villani. Professor Marigo takes the complaints of Henricus less
seriously than do most of his predecessors, and believes that the poem is
the work of a teacher of the liberal arts who composed it as a vehicle of
instruction.

Reviews 223

The text itself is given in large, clear type. In the footnotes appear
not merely variants but also a selection of the glosses found in some of the
manuscripts. Professor Marigo thinks that these, though not always to be
considered correct, will show how schoolmasters in the Middle Ages taught
their pupils and explained the Elegy. A considerable number of changes
from the usual texts are found. I have compared the new text especially
with that in Migne’s Patrologia Latina (CCIV, 841-67), the text most gen-
erally accessible in America, though that edited by Manni in 1730 is found
insome American libraries. The text of Migne is that published by Leyser
in 1721. In collating with this text about half the Elegy in the new edition,
I have found on the average in every fourth line one variation of some
importance, such as a different word or grammatical form or a change in
order; I have not counted changes in spelling, though these are partly at
least traceable to the manuscripts. Professor Marigo’s punctuation is also
quite unlike that in the text of Migne. To illustrate some improvements —
in line 758 Migne gives the peculiar form decaplatisse, while Professor
Marigo finds in the codices decuplat, a verb found in Augustine (e.g.
Serm. 267, 1) and comparable writers. In line 276 all the editors read
quamve Megera ferit, which is essentially a repetition of quam ferit Alecto
from the preceding line. Professor Marigo gives quave Megera furit, a read-
ing which shows that Henricus cared more for variety than is suggested
by the older texts.

Following the text are a glossary and indices. The glossary explains
words taken from the poets or not sanctioned by the best Latinity. In
addition it refers to the classical poet or mediaeval writer whose authority
may be invoked to justify the usage of Henricus. Among the latter is
Uguecione, whose Magnae Derivationes Professor Marigo has already effec-
tively used in his studies of Dante’s De Vulgari Eloquentia. His references
are to the manuscript in the library of the University of Padua.

An Index Grammaticus lists passages in which there is some peculiarity
in grammar or prosody. For example, there is a list of adjectives of neuter
gender, singular number, used as substantives, something possible but in-
frequent in classical Latin. There is also a list of words in which “ quan-
titas a recepta prosodia recedit”; eight instances are given of ergo with
short 0, as rarely in Ovid and post-Augustan poets. This section gives
convenient materials for a grammar of late twelfth-century Latin.

The third index is one of names and subjects, and the last gives refer-
ences to passages in the Bible and in classical writers which Henricus quotes
orechoes. The Elegy is sometimes called an imitation of Boéthius, whom
it once mentions, yet Professor Marigo has detected his influence in but
five passages. Ovid, Horace, and Virgil appear most frequently.

H.
Duke University.

|
d
n
e
rt
it
,
t,
5.
e-
:
8,
zh
an
ct.
ve
A
eS
ns
ia
1s
of
he

224 Reviews

Henry L. Savaae, ed., St Erkenwald, A Middle English Poem (Yale Studies in English,
LXXII), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1926. Pp. lxxix + 92.

Tue Poet of Pearl is coming to his own. Counting Morris, there are now
three editions of Pearl, Patience, and Clannesse; counting Madden, three
of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight; and now, counting Horstmann’s
Legenden, three editions of St Erkenwald, a poem often attributed to the
same poet. The last edition of the last poem consists of an Introduction
(pp. i-Ixxix), the Text (pp. 1-20, 17 pages of Text proper), Notes (pp. 21-51),
Glossary (pp. 52-84), and an excellent Bibliography (pp. 85-92).

The Introduction deals laboriously, somewhat unnecessarily so perhaps,
with the manuscript, sources, dialect, metre and alliteration, authorship,
date. It is considerably longer than that of Gollancz’s edition (13 pages
longer), and still longer than Menner’s Introduction to the much longer
poem, Clannesse (Purity). It also lacks such a valuable treatment of the
Language as that of Tolkien in his Sir Gawain. Otherwise it shows inde-
pendent judgment about moot-points, and is generally commendable.

Especially to be commended is the printing of the text with the modem
differentiation of i-j, u-v, and the expanding of ordinary abbreviations
without italics, as in Menner’s Purity and Tolkien’s Sir Gawain. The
editor might well have adopted the latter’s practice of introducing emen-
dations of the text without parentheses, explaining in footnotes. Excellent
explanatory notes at the foot of the page indicate MS. peculiarities, and
MS. readings when necessary. The printing of the text in quatrains, fol-
lowing Gollancz in some of the other poems also, seems to me less to be
commended and not warranted by the sense of the lines. Savage has also
followed Gollancz in the rather absurd claim that printing in quatrains —
not always observed by either editor as we shall see — makes the poem
“altogether more vivid and lighter in structure.” Of course all that can
be meant by such an expression is that the page appears “‘lighter”’ to the
eye. Nor can any poem be made “more vivid” by any kind of printing
but only by the subject matter and its treatment by the poet. The proper
division of such a blank verse poem is into paragraphs, as by Menner in
his Purity (Clannesse). To my discussion of the quatrain division in rela
tion to Patience in Mod. Lang. Notes, XXXI (1916), 2-4, may now be
added some brief notes on this poem, and especially on the “logical pauses”
emphasized by Mr Savage (p. xlvii). Twice in the first 170 lines both
Gollancz and Savage print five lines together, and once a couplet, becaus
the “logical pauses” will admit of no other divisions, least of all the quatrail
structure. Both editors show by their punctuation that vv. 73-84, 207-16,
309-20 belong together logically and syntactically, or could be broken up
into smaller divisions without regard to quatrains. After so-called quat-

T
R

80.

B&B

tic

| Jo
|
the
Gre
Me

Reviews 225

rains are often placed periods which might just as well be semicolons or
even commas. An example of the first is at the end of v. 20, and of the
second at the end of v. 52. Similar examples might be cited in any fifty
lines of the poem.

The Notes seem well conceived and painstakingly worked out. On the
Glossary some criticisms might be passed, as in that of Menner in my review
of his Purity (Jour. of Eng. and Germ. Phil., XX, 1921, 229, specifically
p. 287). In spite of the fact that the late MS. has many a final -e not
organically a part of the word, the words in such a Glossary should be printed
in their usual Middle-English forms, with the inorganic e in parenthesis per-
haps. Here the failure to indicate datives of nouns and adjectives, or weak
and plural forms of the latter, has led to the incorrect glossing of many
words. I note, for example, in a single column of one page (55) blode for
blod, the citations being of datives; bodeworde for bodeword; bolde for bold,
the citations being weak forms; bone ‘bone’ for bon, the citation being
plural. Similar examples might be found on almost any page of the Glos-
sary. In meaning and etymology, on the other hand, care has been taken
and the results are excellent.

Farrar Emerson,
Western Reserve University.

The Editors of Specu.um regret to announce the death of

Professor Emerson on March 138th, 1927.

C.G. Crump and E. F. Jacos (edd.), The Legacy of the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1926. Pp. xii, 549. 42 plates. $3.50.
Tus book contains an introduction by C. G. Crump, formerly of the Public
Record Office, and the following essays: F. M. Powicke, The Christian Life;
W. R. Lethaby, Mediaeval Architecture; Paul Vitry, Mediaeval Sculpture;
Marcel Aubert, Decoration and Industrial Arts; Claude Jenkins, Some
Aspects of Mediaeval Latin Literature; Cesare Foligno, Vernacular Litera-
ture: E. A. Lowe, Handwriting; C. R. S. Harris, Philosophy; J. W. Adam-
son, Education; the late Sir Paul Vinogradoff, Customary Law; Gabriel le
Bras, Canon Law; Edouard Meynial, Roman Law; Eileen Power, The Posi-
tion of Women; N.S. B. Gras, The Economic Activity of Towns; Charles
Johnson, Royal Power and Administration; E. F. Jacob, Political Thought.
Since the close of the war there has been a tendency to write books
designed to show how deeply the roots of modern civilization go down into
the past, e.g., the series of small books under the general title, Our Debt to
Greece and Rome, published by Marshall Jones Company of Boston, and
Mediaeval Contributions to Modern Civilization: a series of lectures delivered

lish,
nom
three
the
ction
aps,
ship,
pages
onger
f the
inde-
»dern
tions
The
men-
ellent
, and i
fol-
to be i
3 also
ns —
t can
o the
nting
roper
ver in
-rela-
yw be
uses”
CAUSE
atrail
y7-16,
en up
quat-

226 Reviews

at King’s College University of London, edited by F. J.C. Hearnshaw, New
York, Henry Holt and Company, 1922. The present volume is the third of
a series published by the Clarendon Press, of which The Legacy of Greece
appeared in 1922 and The Legacy of Rome in 1923. Each succeeding volume
in this series has improved in the quality of paper and in the beauty of
the illustrations, although the binding of The Legacy of the Middle Ages is
weaker, apparently due to the stout paper of the fine plates. The Legacy
of Rome contained list of books recommended for further reading. We miss
this convenience in the present volume, but welcome an index.

These essays are addressed to persons well-read not only in mediaeval
history but in general literature as well. Only a few of them are espe-
cially suited for the general courses in mediaeval history ordinarily given
in American universities. The field covered is western Latin Christendom,
exclusive of Spain and the Scandinavian countries. The natural sciences
are to be treated in a succeeding volume.

It is a sign of health in twentieth-century scholarship that the Middle
Ages are no longer overlooked in general surveys of human culture. There
is ample proof on every page of this book that no aspect of mediaeval life
can be neglected with impunity by the student who wishes to understand
modern civilization. So completely do the Middle Ages form natural links
between ancient and modern times that the reader often wonders whether
the theme of the book is the legacy which the Middle Ages received from
the past or the legacy which they left to us.

Although all the essays of this volume were carefully prepared by spe-
cialists and are well edited they vary greatly in value and in the method
of approach. Most of the writers pay attention to the title of the book, an
attempt to link the present with the past, but some of them give little heed
to that general plan. This is particularly true of the essay on royal power
and administration. The introduction to the volume is furnished not so
much by the “Introduction” as by Professor Powicke, who writes with feel-
ing and with deep understanding about the roots and the nature of mediae-
val Christianity. The chapters on art and literature, although written by
competent specialists, do not leave many clear-cut impressions. Readers
who have not seen mediaeval works of art in situ, and who have not read
widely in mediaeval literature, will inevitably flounder in portions of these
compressed surveys. It was very wise to give disproportionately large space
and many plates to E. A. Lowe, who has written the best sketch on Latin
palaeography to be found anywhere and has at the same time shown
clearly how mediaeval handwriting developed and what influence it has
had on modern writing and printing. Philosophy and education are such
vast subjects that the authors of those articles could not sustain throughout
the standard of excellence which is reached in the treatment of John Scotus

i
i
|
|
|

Reviews 227

Eriugena in the first essay and of primary and secondary education in the
second. The essay on customary law is a precious relic because it is the
very last work of Vinogradoff who, a few weeks before his death, was
honored by the University of Paris as one of the world’s greatest scholars.
Those on canon law and Roman law are welcome additions to an important
field of mediaeval learning in which we have very little readable material
in English. The sketch on the position of women is delightful. It was
fortunate that the editors were able to find for the inarticulate women of
the Middle Ages a modern spokeswoman who can write with grace as well
as with skill and erudition. We fear that Miss Power will be obliged to
admit that even the love-letters of Héloise were not written by a mediaeval
woman but were the vain imaginings of a very vain man. Professor Gras,
the only American contributor to this volume, has made a valuable addi-
tion to the scanty literature on mediaeval towns and has demonstrated
what must seem startling to many modern readers that even mediaeval
business life has had its effects on our own. The volume concludes with
an excellent essay on mediaeval political thought by one of the editors.

L. J. Parrow,
University of California.

Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Medii Aeui Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis. Digessit Ellen Jgrgen-
sen. Copenhagen, 1926. Pp. 536.
Ar last there is available a complete and adequate catalogue of the eight
hundred Latin codices of the Royal Library at Copenhagen. This rich
collection has naturally not remained unknown, and there have been
accounts of its illuminated manuscripts and of many individual volumes;
but we now have the first comprehensive catalogue, giving full references
to previous descriptions, and executed with the high scholarly competence
which we should expect from the author’s previous work as a mediaevalist.
This library has been built up by gift and purchase over a long series of
years, including the period since 1919, and it comprises a surprising number
of codices from France and Italy, besides those of northern origin. The
central period of the Middle Ages is well represented, notably the twelfth
century. Rather more than half of the volume is given over to “‘Codices
theologici,” broadly interpreted, but the classical manuscripts are uncom-
monly numerous, and there is something for the gleaner in many mediaeval
fields. I have noted, for example, three early treatises on the ars dictaminis.

Cuar.es H. Haskins,
Harvard University.

d of
reece
ume
y of
is
miss
eval
spe-
iven a ;
jom,
nces
ddle
life
tand
links :
ther
from

spe-
thod
k, an
heed
ower
ot so
feel-
diae-
n by
aders
read
these
Latin
hown
t has
shout
cotus

228 Reviews

Epwarp C. Armstrone, The Authorship of the Vengement Alizandre and of the Venjance
Alizandre (Elliott Monographs, No. 19), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996,
Pp. xii + 55.

Bateman Epwarps, A Classification of the Manuscripts of Gui de Cambrai’s Vengement Aliz-
andre (Elliott Monographs, No. 20) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926. Pp,
vi+ 51.

StupEnts of Old-French literature and of the Alexander Legend will wel-
come the two most recent numbers of the Elliott Monographs, dedicated
to the famous ‘revenge’ continuations of the Old-French Roman d’Alez-
andre. Interdependent, these studies can scarcely be considered separately.

Mr Armstrong’s investigations reach two important conclusions:
(1) That Gui de Cambrai, author of the Barlaam and Josaphat, and Gui
de Cambrai, author of the Vengement Alixandre, are identical (p. 25), and
that the author was in all probability an inmate of the monastery of Saint-
Nicholas d’Arrouaise. In passing, Mr Armstrong shows (pp. 6 ff.) that the
Barlaam was probably dedicated to Gilles I of Marquais (f 1202), not
Gilles II, as he, following Paul Meyer, had earlier thought. (2) That the
author of the ‘revenge’ continuation not by Gui de Cambrai was Jean le
Névelon (Johannes Nevelonis), second son of Névelon, Royal Marshal and
bailli of Arras; that this same Jean was archdeacon of Arras in 1181; and
that, not long before the death of his patron Count Henry I of Champagne
(le Libéral, ¢ 1181), he composed the Venjance Alizxandre, dedicated to Count
Henry and quite possibly inspired by knowledge of the Alexandreis of
Gautier de Chatillon, then secretary to Archbishop Guillaume aux Blanches
Mains, Count Henry’s brother (pp. 44-51). The date 1288-1302, long
championed by Paul Meyer, will now find few supporters; while the name
‘Venelais’ ‘Nevelois,’ shown (pp. 29-32) to be the result of a scribal blun-
der, or rather a series of scribal blunders, bids fair to disappear into the
realm of ghost-names. Mr Armstrong has set forth his arguments con-
vincingly, and summons to his aid all available resources of linguistics,
literary criticism, and especially diplomatics.

In the second essay under review, Mr Edwards offers the hitherto most
complete examination of the MSS of the Vengement Alizandre (before 1191)
by Gui de Cambrai. The title adopted is evidently that intended by the
French author (see p. v), and MS. H, to be used by Mr Edwards in a forth-
coming edition, is shown to be far and away the most reliable and desirable
as a basic text. Of especial interest to students of the Alexander Legend
is a detailed analysis (pp. 4-12) of MS. Parma 1206 (saec. xiv) of the Roman
with the attendant discovery that the ‘revenge’ continuation contained
therein is nothing more nor less than a very thorough amalgamation ¢f
the Vengement and the Venjance. (What a satisfaction at last to have dis
tinct titles for distinct works!)

i
I
u
le
th
m
is
in
tic
Ne
Li
be
|

Reviews 229

Both of these admirable Princeton studies reflect the growing interest
among American mediaevalists in that great cycle of romance, of which
detailed modern knowledge has been up to now almost exclusively due to
the researches of Ausfeld (t+), Hilka, Kroll, Pfister, and their students.

F. P. Macooun, Jr

R. Prresscn, The Heliand Manuscript Cotton Caligula A. VII in the British Museum. A Study.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925. Pp. vi+ 49. 5 plates.

In the present monograph Professor Priebsch has made a significant con-
tribution to a chapter in literary-historical relations, important no less for
the student of Old-English and Old-Saxon philology and paleography than
for the student of international cultural history in the tenth century.

The centre of interest lies in the script of those folios of MS. Cott.
Caligula A.VII which contain Heliand C — basically Carolingian minus-
cular, modified by tenth-century ‘reformed’ Insular. Minute study of the
writing (single letters, pp. 13-21, and especially the ligature for s + t, pp. 23—
97), of the illuminated letters, and of the ‘numbered sections’ (see p. 46,
fn. — less full than one might wish) leads to the conservatively stated con-
clusion (pp. 28-29) that the scribe of Heliand C was either (1) an Anglo-
Saxon whose calligraphy had been influenced by a Continental Studienreise,
or (2) a Continental Saxon whose hand (and perhaps language) had been
modified by a sojourn in England. In conclusion, Professor Priebsch in-
clines to the view that the scribe may well have been the Saxon B——-,
author of the first uita of St Dunstan and probably of certain well-known
letters; that he would have resided in England (not unlikely Canterbury,
p. 41); and that his exemplar may have contained the original of the OE.
Genesis B as well as the archetype of Heliand C.

This monograph is further noteworthy for the emphasis which it places
upon “the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the handwriting preva-
lent in the various scriptoria of southern England during the 10th and 11th
centuries.” Here, by a study of many of the MS. treasures of the British
Museum and the Bodleian Library, Professor Priebsch has sharpened up
the findings of Wolfgang Keller and pointed the way to future investigators.

The reviewer does not feel that the discussion (p. $1) of the band-orna-
mentation and of the zoémorphic and foliate elements in the colored initials
is exhausted with a hint of Byzantine origin and note of their prevalence
in Southern MSS of the tenth and eleventh centuries; for the line of tradi-
tion, rough and broken though it be, may well reach back to eighth-century
Northumbria. But the relation of this to the ornamentation of, say, the
Lindisfarne Gospels, lately discussed by Mr Eric Millar, would naturally
be examined in a separate study.

026,
Pp.
vel-
ted
ely.
ons:
Gui
and ‘
\int-
‘the
not
the
in le
and
and
agne
ount
is of
ches
lame
plun-
> the
con-
stics,
most
1191)
y the 7
orth-
rable
agend =
oman
ained
on of
re dis-
a

230 Reviews

Incidentally we are given an up-to-date description (pp. 9-11) of the
whole MS. — a Sammelband of four items, bound together by Sir Robert
Bruce Cotton.

The plates, admirable in reproducing in natural-size generous specimens
of the script under discussion, enhance the worth of a brochure invaluable
to all who are interested in the matters which it examines or broaches.

F. P. Macoon, Jr

j
|
{
A
|
|
|
.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOOKS RECEIVED

Under this heading Specutvm will list the titles of all books and mono-
phs on mediaeval subjects as soon as they are received from author

or publisher. In many cases the titles here listed will be reviewed in a

future issue.

P. Alfaric, E. Hoepffner, tr., edd., La Chanson de Sainte Foy. Tome I*', Fac-simile du manu-
scrit et texte critique, Introduction et Commentaire philologiques; Tome II, Traduction fran-
gaise et Sources Latines, Introduction et Commentaire historiques (Publications de la Faculté
des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg; Fasc. 32, 33), Paris: Société d’Edition: Les
Belles Lettres, 1926. Review in preparation.

J. Balogh, ‘Voces Paginarum.”’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte des lauten Lesens und Schreibens,
Leipzig: Dietrich, 1927.

B. D. Brown, A Study of the Middle English Poem known as the Southern Passion, Bryn Mawr
diss., Oxford: Johnson, 1926. Review in preparation.

J. M. Clark, The Abbey of St Gall as a Centre of Literature and Art, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1926. Review in preparation.

H. Cornell, Biblia Pauperum, Stockholm, 1925.

W. C. Curry, Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences, New York: Oxford University Press, 1926.
Review in preparation.

C. Diehl, H. Bell, tr., Byzantine Portraits, New York: Knopf, 1927.

0. Dobias-Rozdestvensky, ed., Analecta Medii Aeui, Fasciculus I, Leningrad, 1925.

E. von Erhardt-Siebold, Die lateinische Rdtsel der Angelsachsen. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturge-
schichte Altenglands. (Anglistische Forschungen, Heft 61), Heidelberg: Winter, 1925.
Review in preparation.

F.A. Foster, ed., A Stanzaic Life of Christ compiled from Higden’s Polychronicon and the Legenda
Aurea, from MS Harley 3909, E.E.T.S., Orig. Ser., 166, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1926. Review in preparation.

N. Groen, Lexicon Anthimeum, Amsterdam diss., Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1926.

§. H. Hume, A Background to Architecture, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1926. Review
in preparation.

A. G. Kennedy, A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language from the Beginning of
Printing to the End of 1922, Cambridge and New Haven: Harvard University Press—-Yale
University Press, 1927.

J.R. Reinhard, Amadas et Ydoine, An Historical Study, Durham, N. C.: Duke University
Press, 1927. Review in preparation.

J. Svennung, ed., Palladii Rutilii Tauri Aemiliani Viri Illustris Opus Agriculturae. Liber
Quartus Decimus de Veterinaria Medicina (Collectio Scriptorum Veterum Upsaliensis),
Giteborg: Eranos, 1926.

—, Orosiana: Syntaktische, Semasiologische und Kritische Studien zu Orosius (Uppsala Uni-
versitets Arsskrift, 1922, fil.-hist. vet., 5), Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 1922.

7
a
,
the
ert
ens
ble
r
ay
7
Be

|
|

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
I

GENERAL SUGGESTIONS

1. All communications intended for publication should be pre-
sented with as much consideration for style as the nature of the sub-
ject will permit.

2. Articles in foreign languages will usually be accepted, but it is
hoped that the authors of such articles will, if expedient, permit an
approved English translation to be substituted.

II
TYPOGRAPHICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL RULES

In the interest of uniformity, clearness, and economy, the edi-
torial board has adopted the following typographical and biblio-
graphical conventions. Since these will be applied to all MSS pub-
lished, contributors are requested to codperate by following these
rules when preparing their MSS. Special cases will receive special
consideration, but it is hoped that contributors will be sparing in
their departures from the regular editorial practice.

1. All MSS must be typewritten, and double-spaced, on only one
side of standard-size (83”X11") paper. Ample margins should be
left on all sides. MSS exceeding four or five pages should not be
folded or rolled.

2. Except for such recognized Anglicisms as shew for show and
-our for -or, the Concise Oxford Dictionary will be taken as the ortho-
graphic authority.

3. Italic will be used for words and phrases not in the language
in which the article is written, including quotations not exceeding
five or six typewritten lines, which appear in the body of the text
(see §6 below); also for the titles of books and poems, ancient or
modern, of periodical publications, and for the title of manuscripts.
Such words, phrases, passages, or titles, unless italic script itself be
used, should be underscored.

4. Titles of articles in periodical publications will be in roman
and quoted. See §§ 14 and 15 below.

5. The following words, phrases, and abbreviations should be
italicized :
ad loc., cap., circa (ca.), et al., ibid., idem, infra, loc. cit., op. cit.,
passim, saec., scilicet (scil. or sc.), sub voce (s. v.), versus (v8.),
vide (v.), viz.,

4
an

but not:
col., cf., etc., e.g., ff. (following), fol. (folio, folios), i.e., and p.

6. In the body of the text, quotations in any language of over
five or six typewritten lines will be printed without quotation marks
in small roman as separate paragraphs (see § 3 above). In footnotes,
also printed in small roman, quotations will be treated in the same
manner. In typewritten MSS, small roman may be indicated either
by single-spacing or by a vertical line at the side of the quoted
passage.

7. Wherever special type is necessary, a marginal note of instruc-
tion should be added. Bold-face should be indicated by a wavy line
under the word or words.

8. It will be of great convenience to the editors if footnotes are
placed immediately below the line which carries the reference num-
ber, and are set off from the text by a line drawn above and below
the note.

9. Reference numbers used for footnotes will be printed con-
tinuously on the page, but not continuously throughout an article.

10. In the citation of references the amount of bibliographical
detail will be left to the discretion of the contributor, but — taking
into consideration the desired omissions — the order of the items
should be presented in the form and order given below. As a rule,
item 5 should not be included in citing books over twenty years old.
Contributors are urged, however, to give full bibliographical data
when referring to out-of-the-way or very rare books, since such in-
formation is often of the greatest help to libraries and to individuals
who may wish to consult these titles.

The order of bibliographical items should be as follows: (1) au-
thor’s name, preceded by his initials and followed by a comma; (2)
title (italicized if of a book or periodical, in roman and quoted if of
and article); (3) where necessary, the edition, followed by a comma;
(4) place of publication, followed by a colon; (5) name of publisher;
(6) date of publication; (7) reference to volume (large roman
numerals without preceding ‘Vol.’ or ‘V.’) and page (or column).
Items 3 to 6 should be placed in parentheses. For example:

H. O. Taylor, The Mediaeval Mind (4th ed., New York: Macmillan, 1925), II, 221.

C. Plummer, “Glossary of DuCange. — Addenda et Corrigenda,” Archiwum Latinitatia
Mediti Aeut, I (1925), 225.

11. Where the reference includes the number of the volume, as
in the illustrations given in § 10, the abbreviation ‘p.’ or ‘col.’
will be omitted; otherwise the page (or column) number should
be preceded by ‘p.’ or ‘col.’ Folios of MSS should be designated

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ce
|
| be
pr
| ru

by ‘fol.’ and described ‘r’ and ‘v’ (not ‘a’ and ‘b’). Both ‘recto’
(‘r’) and ‘verso’ (‘v’) should be specified. For example:

C.H. Beeson, A Primer of Medieval Latin (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1925), p. 45.

W.-H. Maigne d’Arnis, Lexicon Manuale ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis (Paris:
Garnier, 1890), col. 1678.

MS. Cotton Vitel. A. XV, fol. 172v.

12. The names of ancient authors appearing in the body of the
text should not be abbreviated, though in footnotes abbreviations
may be used: for Greek, according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-
English Lexicon (rev. ed., Oxford, 1925), pp. xiii-xxxvi; for Latin,
according to Harper’s Latin Dictionary (ed. Lewis and Short), pp.
vii-xi. For example:

Oros., iii, 12, 6.

13. In citing from the works of mediaeval and ancient authors,
use small roman numerals for ‘books,’ Arabic numerals for the
smaller divisions (chapter, section, etc.). Commas, not periods,
should separate these items. For example:

Bede, Historia Eccl., ii, 2.

14. In citing from periodical publications, both volume and year
should be given, the year (in parentheses) following the volume
number. For example:

R. R. Welschen, “Le Concept de Personne selon Saint Thomas,” Revue Thomiste, XXII
(1914), 129 ff.

15. The proceedings of societies and academies are often vexing
and perplexing titles to trace, and great economy of effort might be
effected were the bibliographical directions standardized. Therefore
it is kindly requested that the titles of the issuing body be given
from the entry in the Union List of Serials in the Libraries of the
United States and Canada, ed. W. Gregory (New York City: H. W.
Wilson Co., provisional ed., 1924 ff.); these entries are those used by
the Library of Congress and many other leading American libraries.
For example:

C. Wendel, “‘ Ueberlieferung und Entstehung der Theokrit-Scholien,” K. Gesells. d. Wis-
sensch. zu Gottingen, Abhandlungen, phil.-hist. K]., N. F., XVII (1920), Nr. 2. (Cf. Union List,
pp. 822b, 823b.)

A. Hilke u. W. Séderhjelm, “Petri Alfonsi Disciplina Clericalis; I. Lat. Text,” Finska
Vetenskap ieteten, XX XVIII (Helsingfors, 1911), Nr. 4. (Cf. Union List, p. 748b.)

16. Upon first reference, titles should be given amply; in suc-
ceeding references any conventional or easily intelligible abbrevia-
tion may be employed.

17. Abbreviations such as loc. cit., op. cit. should not ordinarily
be used to refer farther back than the preceding page. Since the
problem, however, is merely to avoid ambiguity, no hard and fast
tule need be laid down.

ver
Les,
me
ted
uc-
are
um-
low
a
ical
| .
ems
rule,
old.
data
1 in-
uals
au-
(2)
if of ;
ima,
sher; 3
man
mn).
ie, as
‘ hg
col.
rated

18. All references should be verified in the completed MS. before
it is submitted for publication.

19. Mediaeval nomenclature is far from uniform. Where a con-
ventional English form of a name exists, this should be used: thus,
Vincent of Beauvais, Geoffrey of Monmouth, not Vincentius Bello-
vacensis, Vincent de Beauvais, or Galfridus Monemutensis. If no
recognized English form exists, it will be preferable in most cases
to use the form of the name employed to-day in the language of the
writer concerned; thus, Chrétien de Troyes, not Chrestien de Troyes or
Christian of Troyes; Gautier de Chatillon, not Gualterus de Castellione
or Walter of Chdtillon. In many cases the ‘standard’ form is, by
common consent and practice, Latin: thus, Andreas Capellanus, not
Andrew the Chaplain. There will of course be many doubtful cases,
e.g., Alanus de (ab) Insulis vs. Alain de I’Ile (de Lille).

The principle here stated is also applicable in most cases to the
titles of mediaeval works.

Except where a well-established Anglicized form exists, place-
names should follow the usage of the country in which the place
now lies.!

Itt
AvuTHOR’s CORRECTIONS

The funds of Specutum do not admit of an expenditure of over
fifteen per cent (15%) of the cost of composition for alterations in
articles once set up in galley proof. In order that contributors may
be spared the expense of exceeding this allowance, they are urged to
prepare their MSS as nearly as possible in conformity with the
above rules.

OFFPRINTS

Fifty (50) offprints will be given to the author of each article.
Offprints in excess of the regular allowance may be had at cost and
should be ordered at the time of publication.

Inquiries may be addressed to the Managing Editor.

1 In preparing the above typographical and bibliographical rules, the editors have been
under great obligation to A Manual for Writers by J. M. Manly and J. A. Powell (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press).

i
|
R
hi
ne
in
|
cre
|
| wo
He
|
stu
the
may
all
| field
who
the.
St
| Dt
]

ore

icle.
and

The
| Hispanic American
Historical Review

JAMES A. ROBERTSON
Editor-in-Chief

J. FRED RIPPY
Associate Editor

The Hispanic American Historicar
Review is designed to afford a medium
of publication for articles relating to the
history of the Hispanic American coun-
tries and to provide reviews or other
notices of books and all publications of
interest to students of that subject.

The study of the history of the Latin-
American nations deserves to attract in-
creasing attention in view of their growth
inpower and importance and because it is

’ esential for the peace and welfare of the
world that the peoples in the Western
Hemisphere understand each other. The
publishers of the Review feel that a
study of the history and traditions of
these important peoples will help greatly
topromote such an understanding. They
confidently hope, therefore, that they
may have the codperation of scholars in
ill countries who are interested in this
field of study and of all men everywhere
who desire to promote good will among
the American family of nations.

Subscription price $4.00 per annum

Published Quarterly by
Duke University Press
Durham, North Carolina

atin atin atin atin

FOUR BOOKS ON
MEDIAEVAL SUBJECTS

‘DANTE!

John J. Chapman

This lucid study illumines Dante’s art and pre-
sents him as an individual in a new and human
conception. Thirteen of the most beautiful can-

tos of the “Divine Comedy” are newly trans-

lated. $2.50

§ THE FORERUNNERS ¢
§ OF SAINT FRANCIS:

And Other Studies
Ellen Scott Davison

A study of the religious movements of the elev-
5 enth and twelfth centuries, and of social and eco-
nomic phases of thirteenth-century France, with
introductions by Gertrude R. B. Richards and
James T. Shotwell. $5.00. Ready in May.

THE FRANCISCANS

sIN ENGLAND6&
Edward Hutton

The first complete, authoritative, and detailed
history of the monastic order that founded Ox-
ford and Cambridge, and profoundly influenced
English life during the Middle Ages. $2.00

iSCHOLARS!
Helen Waddell

; sound and attractive study of the Latin sc ie

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN

arship of the Middle Ages as taught by the
wandering scholars. Ready in May.

COMPANY : PARK SORFET

‘3
us,
lo-
no
he
the
{|
OF
by
not
the
ace
ver
sm
nay
d to
the a
been
icago:
ox

THE RENAISSANCE OF THE
TWELFTH CENTURY

CHARLES HOMER HASKINS

Modern research shows us the Middle Ages less dark and less
static, the Italian Renaissance less bright and less sudden,
than was once supposed. The Middle Ages exhibit life and
color and change, much eager search after knowledge and
. beauty, much creative accomplishment in art, in literature,in
» institutions. The twelfth century in particular was an age of
» fresh and vigorous life, to which the term ‘renaissance’ may )
fitly be applied. It left its signature on higher education, on
‘ the scholastic philosophy, on European systems of law, on,
» architecture and sculpture, on the liturgical drama, on Latin |

» and vernacular poetry. Professor Haskins, in this volume,
confines himself to the Latin side of this renaissance, the re-
vival of learning in the broadest sense — the Latin classics ,
and their influence, the new jurisprudence and the more ,
N varied historiography, the new knowledge of the Greeks and A
Hy Arabs and its effects upon Western science and philosophy,

and the new institutions of learning, all seen against the i
» backgrounds of the century’s centres and materials of cul- ‘
> ture. Since there is no other work on this general theme, the {
volume is of unusual significance and value. {
4
$5.00 a copy
| HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS \
| 1 Randall Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts
No

|
|
|
|
=
|
0
¥ (
|
|
|
|

af
|
) |
4
|

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Speculum 1927-04: Vol 2 Iss 2"

See other formats